AUG   1^  1955 


THE   REVISION 

OF   THE 

ENGLISH    VERSION 

OF    THE 

NEW    TESTAMENT. 


BY 

J.  B.  LIGHTFOOT,  D.D., 

€\NON   OF   ST.  PATTL'S, 
AND   HULSKAN    PROFESSOR  OF   DIVINITV,  CAMBjlTrGE  ; 

RICHARD   CHENEVIX  TRENCH,  D.D., 

AEOHBiBnop  or  dudlin; 

C.    J.    ELLICOTT,    D.D., 

BIBIIOr  OF   GLOtrOESTEB  AND   BKI8T0L. 


WITH  AN  INTRODUCTION 

BY 

PHILIP   SCHAFF,  D.D., 

PBOTSSeOB  OP  DITIXITY  IX  THE  UKIOM  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,  NEW  YOBK. 


N'BW    YOBK: 
HARPER    &    BROTHERS,    PUBLISHERS, 

FRANKLIN     SQUARE. 

1873. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1872,  by 

Harper    &    Brothers, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


INTRODUCTION 


ON  THE 


REVISION  OF  THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE. 


BY 

PHILIP  SCHAFF. 


CONTENTS. 


Trench,  Ellicott,  and  Lightfoot  on  Revision Page  vii 

The  British  Revision  Committee ix 

Rules  of  the  British  Committee x 

American  Co-operation xv 

List  of  American  Revisers xvi 

First  Meeting  of  the  American  Revisers xvii 

Constitution xviii 

Character  of  the  English  Version— the  Work  proposed xx 

Improvements : 

The  Text. . , xxiv 

Errors xxx 

Inaccuracies xxxiv 

Inconsistencies xxxix 

Archaisms '. xliii 

Proper  Names xliv 

Accessories xlv 

Arrangement xlvi 

Conclusion xlviii 


INTRODUCTION. 

BY    THE    EDITOR. 


TRENCH,  ELLICOTT,  AND  LIGHTFOOT  ON  EEVISION. 

As  the  question  of  revising  for  public  use  the  English 
Version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  has  at  last  assumed  a  defi- 
nite practical  shape  in  Great  Britain,  and  must  before  long 
claim  the  serious  attention  of  all  churches  which  use  the 
same  version,  it  occurred  to  me  that  this  important  subject 
could  not  be  better  introduced  to  American  scholars  than 
by  a  republication  of  the  recent  treatises  of  Archbishop 
Trench,  Bishop  Ellicott,  and  Professor  Lightfoot,  on  the 
principles  and  mode  of  revision.  Some  friends,  whose 
judgment  I  value,  agreed  with  me  in  this  opinion.  Ac- 
cordingly, I  asked  the  consent  of  the  esteemed  authors, 
which  was  promptly  and  cheerfully  given. 

The  eminent  divines,  whose  works  are  united  in  this 
volume,  are  above  all  others  qualified  to  speak  with  au- 
thority on  the  subject  of  revision.  They  bring  to  its  dis- 
cussion ample  learning  in  classical,  Biblical,  and  English 
literature,  a  liigh  order  of  exegetical  skill  and  tact,  sound 
judgment,  long  experience,  conservative  tact,  profound  rev- 
erence for  the  Word  of  God,  and  a  warm  affection  for  the 
Authorized  Version.  They  are  also  well  acquainted  with 
the  labors  of  German  divines,  who  have  made  large  and 
valuable  contributions  to  every  department  of  Biblical  sci- 
ence. They  adorn  high  places  of  honor  and  influence  in 
the  Church  of  England,  which  gave  us  the  present  version, 
and  has  a  hereditary  right  and  duty  to  take  the  lead  in  its 


viii  INTRODZfCTIOK 

improvement.  They  are  active  members  of  the  British 
Committee  on  Revision,  and  fairly  represent  its  ruling 
spirit  and  tendency. 

Going  over  the  same  ground,  these  authors  can  hardly 
avoid  repetition.  They  independently  agree  on  the  funda- 
mental principles  and  chief  improvements.  At  the  same 
time,  they  represent  the  progressive  stages  through  -which 
the  revision  movement  has  passed  within  the  last  twelve 
years. 

Archbishop  Trench  wrote  his  work  in  1859,  before  the 
Kevision  Committee  was  organized,  wdth  the  intention  not 
so  much  either  to  advocate  or  to  oppose  revision,  as  to 
prepare  the  way  for  it  by  a  calm,  cautious,  and  judicious 
examination  of  the  strength  and  weakness,  the  merits  and 
faults  of  the  Authorized  Version,  and  arrived  at  the  con- 
clusion that  revision  will  come,  and  ought  to  come,  though 
it  has  come  sooniir  than  he  at  that  time  anticipated  or  de- 
sired.* 

Eleven  years  later  (1870),  soon  after  the  Convocation  of 
Canterbury  had  taken  the  first  step  toward  an  organized 
effort  of  revision,  Bishop  Ellicott  followed  with  his  treatise, 
presenting  the  principles  and  aims  of  the  present  revision 
movement,  and  his  own  experiences  when  acting  as  one  of 
five  Anglican  clergymen  in  a  previous  attempt  to  revise 
some  portions  of  the  English  ISTew  Testament.  He  re- 
views the  recent  labors  in  the  department  of  textual  criti- 
cism, refutes  the  popular  objections,  and  gives  judicious 
recommendations,  and  a  few  samples  of  revision,  selecting 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  from  Matthew,  and  four  of  the 
most  difficult  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 

Professor  Lightfoot,  of  Cambridge,  whose  name  recalls 
another  of  England's  greatest  and  most  useful  Biblical 

*  The  first  edition  was  reprinted  in  New  York,  1858,  but  was  superseded 
by  the  gi-eatly  improved  edition  of  1859. 


INTRODUCTION.  Jx 

scholars,  prepared  liis  work  in  18Y1,  after  the  Revision 
Companies  liad  begun  their  sessions  in  the  Deanery  of 
"Westminster.  He  therefore  represents  the  actual  work  of 
revision,  and  discusses  it  with  such  learning  and  ability, 
and  in  so  catholic  a  spirit,  as  to  inspire  confidence  in  its 
ultimate  success. 

It  seems  proper  that  I  should  add  to  these  prefatory  re- 
marks some  account  of  the  revision  movement,  and  its  pres- 
ent prospects  in  the  United  States. 

The  British  Revision  Committee. 

The  present  organized  effort  to  revise  the  Authorized 
English  Yersion  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  originated,  after 
long  previous  discussions,  in  the  Convocation  of  Canter- 
bury. This  body,  at  its  session  May  6, 1870,  took  the  fol- 
lowing action,  proposed  by  a  committee  which  consisted  of 
eight  bishops,  the  late  Dean  Alford,  Dean  Stanley,  and  sev- 
eral other  dignitaries : 

1.  That  it  is  desirable  that  a  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  be  undertaken. 

2.  That  the  revision  be  so  conducted  as  to  comprise  both  marginal  render- 
ings and  such  emendations  as  it  may  be  found  necessary  to  insert  in  the  text 
of  the  Authorized  Version. 

3.  That  in  the  above  resolutions  we  do  not  contemplate  any  new  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible,  or  any  alteration  of  the  language,  except  where,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  most  competent  scholars,  such  change  is  necessary. 

4.  That  in  such  necessary  changes,  the  style  of  the  language  employed  in 
the  existing  version  be  closely  followed. 

5.  That  it  is  desirable  that  Convocation  should  nominate  a  body  of  its  own 
members  to  undertake  the  work  of  revision,  who  shall  be  at  liberty  to  invite 
the  co-operation  of  any  eminent  for  scholarship,  to  whatever  nation  or  reUg- 
ious  body  they  may  belong. 

The  report  was  accepted  unanimously  by  the  TJ]3per 
House  and  by  a  great  majority  of  the  Lower  House.  A 
committee  was  also  appointed,  consisting  of  eight  bishops 
and  eight  presbyters,  to  take  the  necessary  steps  for  carry- 
ino:  out  the  resolutions. 


X  INTRODUCTIOK 

The  Convocation  of  York,  owing  mainly i  to  tlie  influ- 
ence of- the  excellent  Archbishop  Thomson,  did  not  fall  in 
with  the  movement,  and  is  therefore  not  represented  in 
the  Committee  on  Revision.  But  a  favorable  change  is 
gradually  taking  place, '  and  some  of  the  most  influential 
members  of  the  Convocation,  as  Dean  Howson,  of  Chester, 
are  hearty  supporters  of  revision. 

Rules  of  the  British  Committee. 
The  Committee  of  bishops  and  presbyters  appointed  by 
the  Convocation  of  Canterbmy,  at  its  first  meeting,  the 
Bishop  of  Winchester  (Dr.  Samuel  Wilberforce)  presiding, 
adopted  the  following  resolutions  and  rules  as  the  funda- 
mental principle  on  which  the  revision  is  to  be  conducted : 

'Resolved, — 'I.  That  the  committee,  appointed  by  the  Convocation  of 
Canterbury  at  its  last  session,  separate  itself  into  two  companies,  the  one  for 
the  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  other  for 
the  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New  Testament. 

*  II.  That  the  company  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the 
Old  Testament  consist  of  the  Bishops  of  St.  Davids,  Llandaff,  Ely,  and  Bath 
and  Wells,  and  of  the  following  members  from  the  Lower  House — Archdea- 
con Kose,  Canon  Selwyn,  t)r.  Jebb,  and  Dr.  Kay. 

'  III.  That  the  company  for  the  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the 
New  Testament  consist  of  the  Bishops  of  Winchester,  Gloucester  and  Bristol, 
and  Salisbur}',  and  of  the  following  members  from  the  Lower  House,  the 
Prolocutor,  the  Deans  of  Canterbury  and  Westminster,  and  Canon  Blakesley. 

'  IV.  That  the  first  portion  of  the  work  to  be  undertaken  by  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Company  be  the  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Pentateuch. 

'  V.  That  the  first  portion  of  the  work  to  be  undertaken  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment Company  be  the  revision  of  the  Auth.  Vers,  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels. 

'  VI.  That  the  following  scholars  and  divines  be  invited  to  join  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Company : 


Alexanpeb,  Dr.W.  L. 
CiiENEUT,  Professor 
Cook,  Canon 
Davidson,  Professor  A.  B, 
Davies,  Dr.  B. 
Faiebaien,  Professor 
Field,  Kev.  F. 


Peeowne,  Professor  J.  H. 
PLUAirTRE,  Professor 
P08EV,  Canon  [declined] 
Weight,  Dr.  (British  Muse- 
um) 
Wkigut,  W.A.  (Cambridge).* 


GiNsncRG,  Dr. 
GoTcii,  Dr. 

Haekison,  Archdeacon 
Leatues,  Professor 
M'GiLi,,  Professor  [deceas'd] 
Payne  Smith,  Canon  [now 
Dean  of  Canterbury] 

'  VII.  That  the  following  scholars  and  divines  be  invited  to  join  the  New 
Testament  Company ; 

*  Dr.  Douglas  and  Dr.  Weir,  of  Glasgow  (Presbyterians),  and  J.  D.  Geden 
(Wesleyan),  were  subsequently  added  to  the  Old  Testament  Company. 


INTRODUCTIOX.  ^i 


Angus,  Dr. 
Brown,  Dr.  David 
Dtjiii.iN,  Archbishop  of 
Eadie,  Dr. 
HoRT,  Rev.  F.  J.  A. 
HcMPURV,  Kev.W.  G. 
Kennedy,  Cauou 


Lee,  Archdencon 

LlGIITFOOT,  Dr. 

MiLLioAN,  Professor 
Moci.TON,  Professor 
Newjian,  Dr.  J.  H.  [declined] 
Newtii,  Professor 
Roberts,  Dr.A. 


Smith,  Rev.  G.Vance 
Scott,  Dr.  (Balliol  Coll.) 
Scrivener,  Rev.  F.  H. 
St.Andrew's,  Bishop  of 
Tregelles,  Dr. 
Vauguan,  Dr. 
Westcott,  Cauou. 


'  VIII.  That  the  genei-al  principles  to  be  followed  by  both  companies  be  as 
follows : 

'  1.  To  introduce  as  few  alterations  as  possible  in  the  text  of  the  x\iuliorized    ^    - 
Version  consistently  with  faithfulness. 

'  2.  To  limit,  as  ftir  as  possible,  the  expression  of  such  alterations  to  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Authorized  and  earlier  English  versions. 

'  3.  Each  company  to  go  twice  over  the  portion  to  be  revised,  once  provision- 
ally, the  second  time  finalh'',  and  on  principles  of  voting  as  hereinafter  is  pro- 
vided. 

'  4.  That  the  text  to  be  adopted  be  that  for  -which  the  evidence  is  decidedly 
preponderating ;  and  that  when  tlve  text  so  adopted  diifers  from  that  from 
which  the  Authorized  Version  was  made,  the  alteration  be  indicated  in  the 
margin. 

'  5.  To  make  or  retain  no  change  in  the  text  on  the  second  final  revision  l)y 
each  company  except  two  thirds  of  those  present  approve  of  the(  same,  but 
on  the  first  revision  to  decide  by  simple  majorities. 

'G.  In  every  case  of  proposed  alteration  that  may  have  given  rise  to  discus- 
sion, to  defer  the  voting  thereupon  till  the  next  meeting  whensoever  the 
same  shall  be  required  by  one  third  of  those  present  at  the  meeting,  such  in- 
tended vote  to  be  announced  in  the  notice  for  the  next  meeting. 

'  7.  To  revise  the  headings  of  chapters,  pages,  paragraphs,  italics,  and  punc-     /^ 
tuation. 

'  8.  To  refer,  on  the  part  of  each  company,  when  considered  desirable,  to  di- 
vines, scholars,  and  literary  men,  whether  at  home  or  abroad,  for  their  opin- 
ions. 

'  IX.  That  the  work  of  each  company  be  communicated  to  the  other  as  it  is 
completed,  in  order  that  there  may  be  as  little  deviation  from  uniformity  in 
language  as  possible. 

'  X.  That  the  special  or  b}'-rules  for  each  company  be  as  follows : 

'  1.  To  make  all  corrections  in  writing  previous  to  the  meeting. 

'  2.  To  place  all  the  corrections  due  to  textual  considerations  on  the  left- 
hand  margin,  and  all  other  corrections  on  the  right-hand  margin. 

'  3.  To  transmit  to  the  chairman,  in  case  of  being  unable  to  attend,  the  cor- 
rections proposed  in  the  portion  agreed  upon  for  consideration. 

'  May  25th,  1870.  S.  Winton.  Chairman.''* 

From  this  list  of  names,  it  will  be  seen  that  tlie  Commit- 
tee, in  enlarging  its  membership,  lias  shown  good  judgment 
and  eminent  impartiality  and  catholicity.  Under  the  fifth 
resolution  of  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury,  it  was  em- 

*  Samuel  Wilberforce,  Bishop  of  Winchester. 


xii  mTRODUCTIOK 

powered  'to  invite  tlie  co-operation  of  any  eminent  for 
scliolarship,  to  whatever  nation  or  religious  hody  they  may 
belong.^  The  Committee  accordingly  solicited  the  co-oper- 
ation of  the  most  distinguished  Biblical  scholars,  not  only 
from  all  schools  and  parties  of  the  Church  of  England,  but 
also  from  Presbyterians,  Independents,  Baptists,  Wesley- 
ans,  and  other  Christian  denominations.  With  two  or 
three  exceptions,  the  invitation  was  accepted  by  all.  Dean 
Alford,  one  of  the  most  active  promoters  of  the  revision 
movement,  died  prematurely  (January,  1871),  but  his  works 
remain  to  aid  the  cause.  Dr.  Tregelles  is  prevented  by 
feeble  health  from  taking  an  active  part ;  but  he  is  pres- 
ent in  spirit  by  his  critical  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
to  which  he  has  devoted  the  best  years  of  his  life.  The 
two  companies  hold  sessions  four  days  every  month  in  the 
venerable  Deanery  of  Westminster.  One  company  occu- 
pies the  historic  Jerusalem.  Chamber,  where  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly  met,  and  where  the  Convocation  of  Canter- 
bury holds  its  sessions. 

The  Committee  includes  a  large  portion  of  the  ripest  and 
soundest  Biblical  scholarship  of  Great  Britain.  I  do  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  in  ability,  learning,  tact,  and  experience 
it  is  superior  to  any  previous  combination  for  a  similar  pur- 
pose, not  excepting  the  forty-seven  revisers  of  King  James, 
most  of  whom  are  now  forgotten.  Trench,  Ellicott,  Light- 
foot,  Stanley, Wordsworth,  and  the  late  Dean  Alford  stand 
first  among  the  modern  exegetes  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  Alexander,  Angus,  Brown,  Eadie,  Fairbairn,  Milligan, 
hold  a  similar  rank  among  the  other  denominations.  There 
are  no  textual  critics  now  living  superior  to  Tregelles,  Scriv- 
ener, Westcott,  and  Hort  (except  Tischendorf  in  Germany, 
who  stands  first  in  reputation  and  in  the  extent  of  his  la- 
bors and  resources). 

It  was  my  privilege,  during  a  visit  to  England  in  1871, 


INTROD  UCTION:  X  iii 

to  attend,  by  special  invitation,  the  sessions  of  the  two 
companies  in  the  Deanery  of  Westminster,  and  to  observe 
their  mode  of  operation.  I  was  very  favorably  impressed 
with  the  scholarly  ability,  the  conscientious  accuracy  and 
thoroughness,  the  reverent  spirit  and  truly  Christian  har- 
mony which  characterize  the  labors  of  the  revisers.  Every 
question  of  textual  criticism  and  exegesis  receives  careful 
attention,  and  every  word  and  its  best  rendering  are  mi- 
nutely discussed.  The  revisers  come  thoroughly  prepared 
to  each  session,  the  several  parts  of  the  task,  as  readings, 
marginal  references,  being  assigned  to  sub-committees.  In 
this  way  they  finish,  on  an  average,  about  forty  verses  a 
day. 

Such  an  amount  of  work  bestowed  on  the  Book  of  books 
can  not  be  in  vain.  It  may  take  seven  or  ten  years  till  the 
revision  is  finished,  but  it  will  be  all  the  better  for  it.  There 
is  no  need  of  haste  in  so  important  and  responsible  an  un- 
dertaking. The  revisers  have  the  power  in  their  hands ; 
they  can  supply  their  vacancies,  add  to  their  number,  and 
prolong  their  labors  as  the  case  may  require.  Their  serv- 
ices are  gratuitous.  The  two  Universities,  in  consideration 
of  the  copyright  of  the  revised  edition,  have  undertaken  to 
pay  the  cost  of  printing  and  other  expenses.  But,  until 
the  whole  is  completed,  no  parts  will  be  published  except 
for  the  strictly  private  use  of  the  revisers.  This  is  no  doubt 
a  wise  course,  and  will  prevent  much  premature  and  un- 
necessary criticism. 

I  add  a  full  list  of  the  members  of  the  British  Commit- 
tee as  it  was  furnished  to  me  in  England,  excluding  those 
who  declined  or  died,  and  including  those  who  are  members 
ex  officio,  or  who  have  been  added  since  the  organization. 

(1.)  OLD   TESTAMENT  REVISION  COMPANY. 

The  Eight  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  Palace,  Wells,  Somerset. 
The  Eight  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Ely,  Palace,  Ely. 


xiv  INTBOD  UCTIOK 

The  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  Bishop's  Court,  LlandafF. 

The  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's  {Chairman),  Abergwili  Palace, 

Carmarthen. 
The  Very  Rev.  the  Bean  of  Canterbury,  Deanery,  Canterbury. 
The  Ven.  Archdeacon  Harrison,  Canterbury. 
The  Ven.  Archdeacon  Rose,  Houghton  Conquest,  Ampthill. 
The  Rev.  Canon  Selwyn,  Trumpington  Road,  Cambridge. 
The  Rev.  Dr.  Kay,  Great  Leighs,  Chelmsford. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander,  Pinkieburn,  Musselburgh,  Edinburgh. 

R.  L.  Bensly,  Esq.,  University  Library,  Cambridge. 

Professor  Chenery,  Reform  Club,  S.W. 

The  Rev.  Professor  Davidson,  10  Rillbank  Terrace,  Edinburgh. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Da  vies,  Baptist  College,  Regent's  Park,  N.  W. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Douglas,  10  Fitzroy  Place,  Glasgow. 

The  Rev.  Principal  Fairbairn,  13  Elmbank  Crescent,  Glasgow. 

The  Rev.  F.  Field,  2  Carlton  Terrace,  Heigham,  Norwich. 

The  Rev.  J.  D.  Geden,  Wesleyan  College,  Didsbury,  Manchester. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Ginsburg,  Holm  Lea,  Binfield,  Bracknell,  Berks. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Gotch,  Baptist  College,  Bristol. 

The  Rev.  Professor  Leathes,  King's  College,  London,  47  Priory  Road. 

The  Rev.  Canon  Perowne,  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

The  Rev.  Professor  Plumptre,  Pluckley,  Ashford. 

The  Rev.  Professor  Weir,  University,  Glasgow. 

W.  Aldis  "Wright,  Esq.  (Secretary),  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 


(2.)  NEW  testament  revision  company. 
The  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Winchester,  Winchester  House,  S.W. 
The  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol  (Chairman), 

Palace,  Gloucester. 
The  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  Palace,  Salisbury. 
The  Very  Rev.  the  Dean  of  Westminster,  Deanery, Westminster,  S.W. 
The  Very  Rev.  Dr.  Scott,  Dean  of  Rochester,  Rochester. 
The  Ven.  the  Prolocutor,  The  Prebendal,  Aylesbury. 
The  Rev.  Canon  Blakesley,  Vicarage,  Ware. 

The  Most  Rev.  the  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  Palace,  Dublin. 

The  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of  St  Andrew's,  The  Feu  House,  Perth. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Angus,  Baptist  College,  Regent's  Park,  N.W. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  David  Brown,  Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen. 

The  Rev.  Professor  Eadie,  G  Thornville  Terrace,  Glasgow. 

The  Rev.  F.  J.  A.  Hort,  6  St.  Peter's  Terrace,  Cambridge. 

The  Rev.  W.  G.  Humphry,  Vicarage,  St.  Martin's-in-the-Fields,  W.C. 

The  Rev.  Canon  Kennedy,  The  Elms,  Cambridge. 

The  Ven.  Archdeacon  Lee,  Dublin. 

The  Rev.  Canon  Lightfoot,  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 

The  Rev.  Professor  Milligan,  University,  Aberdeen. 


INTRODUCTION.  XV 

The  Rev.  Professor  Modlton,  Wesleyan  College,  Richmond,  Surrey. 

The  Rev.  Professor  Newth,  25  Clifton  Road,  N.  W. 

The  Rev.  Professor  Roberts,  St.  Andrew's. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  G.  yAXCE'  Smith,  York. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Scrivener,  Gerrans,  Grampound. 

Dr.  Tregelles,  G  Portland  Square,  Plymouth. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Vaugh.vn,  Master  of  the  Temi)le,  The  Temple,  London. 

The  Rev.  Canon  Westcott,  Precincts,  Peterborough. 

The  Rev.  J.  Troutbeck  {Secretary),  4  Dean's  Yard,  Westminster. 

American  Co-ojperation. 

The  British  Committee  is  f ullj  competent,  without  for- 
eign aid,  to  do  justice  to  the  work  committed  to  its  care. 
Yet,  in  view  of  its  practical  aim  to  furnish  a  revision  not 
for  scholars,  but  for  the  churches,  it  is  of  great  importance 
to  secure,  at  the  outset,  the  sympathy  and  co-operation  of 
Biblical  scholars  in  the  United  States,  where  the  Author- 
ized Version  is  as  widely  used  and  as  highly  respected  as  in 
Great  Britain.  Rival  revisions  would  only  add  new  fuel 
to  sectarian  divisions  already  too  numerous  among  Protest- 
ants. Let  us  hold  fast  by  all  means  to  the  strongest  bond 
of  interdenominational  and  international  union  which  we 
have  in  a  common  Bible.  The  new  revision,  when  com- 
pleted, should  appear  with  the  imprimatur  of  the  united 
Biblical  scholarship  of  English-speaking  Christendom. 

In  August,  1870,  Dr.  Joseph  Angus,  President  of  Re- 
gent's Park  College,  London,  and  one  of  the  British  re- 
visers, arrived  in  New  York,  with  a  letter  from  Bishop  El- 
licott,  chairman  of  the  New  Testament  Compan}^,  author- 
izing him  to  open  negotiations  for  the  formation  of  an 
American  Committee  of  Revision.  At  his  request,  I  pre- 
pared a  draft  of  rules  for  co-operation,  and  a  list  of  names 
of  Biblical  scholars  who  would  probably  best  represent  the 
different  denominations  and  literary  institutions  in  this 
movement.  The  suggestions  were  submitted  to  the  Brit- 
ish Committee  and  substantial^'  approved.    Then  followed 


xvi  JXTRODUCTION. 

an  interesting  official  correspondence,  conducted,  on  Lebali 
of  the  British  Committee,  by  the  Bishop  of  Winchester,  the 
Dean  of  Westminster,  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bris- 
tol, and  Dr.  Angus.  I  was  empowered  by  the  British  Com- 
mittee to  select  and  invite  scholars  from  non-Episcopal 
Churches ;  the  nomination  of  members  from  the  American 
Episcopal  Church  was,  for  obvious  reasons,  placed  in  the 
]iands  of  some  of  its  Bishops ;  but,  as  they  declined  to  take 
action,  I  was  requested  to  fill  out  tlie  list.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary, in  this  place,  to  enter  into  details.  I  will  only  state 
the  result  of  the  negotiations. 

List  of  American  Revisers. 

THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  COMPANY. 

Prof.  Thomas  J.  Conant,  D.  D Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

"  George  E.  Day,  D.D New  Haven,  Conn. 

"  John  De  Witt,  D.  D New  Brunswick,  N.  J. 

"  William  Henry  Green,  D.D Princeton,  N.  J. 

"  George  Emlen  Hare,  D.D Philadelphia,  Pa. 

' '  Charles  P.  Kkauth,  D. D Philadelphia,  Pa. 

"  Joseph  Packard,  D.D Fairfax,  Va. 

' '  Calvin  E.  Stowe,  D.D Cambridge,  Mass. 

"  James  Strong,  D.D Madison,  N.  J. 

"  C.  V.  A.  Van  Dyck,  M.D.* Beyrut,  Syria, 

"  Tayler  Lewis,  LL.D Schenectady,  N.  Y, 

the  new  testament  company. 

Right  Rev.  Alfred  Lee,  D.D Wilmington,  Delaware. 

Prof.  Ezra  Abbot,  D.D.,  LL.D Cambridge,  Mass. 

Rev.  G.  R.  Crooks,  D.D New  York. 

Prof.  H.  B.  Hackett,  D.D.,  LL.D Rochester,  N.  Y. 

"     James  Hadley,  LL.D New  Haven,  Conn. 

"     Charles  Hodge,  D.D.,  LL.D Princeton,  N.  J. 

"     A.  C.  Kendrick,  D.D Rochester,  N.Y. 

"     Matthew  B.  Riddle,  D.D Hartford,  Conn. 

"     Charles  Short,  LL.D New  York. 

"     Henry  B.  Smith,  D.D.,  LL.D New  York. 

"     J.  Henry  Thayer,  D.D Andover,  Mass. 

"     W.  F.  Warren,  D.D Boston,  Mass. 

*  Dr.  Van  Dyck,  the  distinguished  translator  of  the  Arabic  Bible,  can  not 
be  expected  to  attend  the  meetings,  but  may  be  occasionally  consulted  on 
questions  involving  a  thorough  knowledge  of  Semitic  languages. 


INTRODUCTION.  xvii 

Rev.  Edward  A.  Washburn,  D.D New  York. 

"     Theo.  D.  Woolset,  D.D. ,  LL.D New  Haven,  Conn. 

Prof.  Philip  Schafp,  D.D New  York. 

In  tlie  delicate  task  of  selection,  reference  was  had,  first 
of  all,  to  ability,  experience,  and  reputation  in  Biblical  learn- 
ing and  criticism ;  next,  to  denominational  connection  and 
standing,  so  as  to  have  a  fair  representation  of  the  leading 
Churches  and  theological  institutions ;  and  last,  to  local  con- 
venience, in  order  to  secure  regular  attendance.  Some  dis- 
tinguished scholars  were  necessaril}''  omitted,  but  may  be 
added  hereafter  by  the  committee  itself. 

So  far  as  I  know,  the  selection  has  given  general  sat- 
isfaction. A  few  gentlemen  (not  included  in  the  above 
list)  declined  the  invitation  for  personal  reasons,  but  not 
from  any  hostility  to  the  pending  revision.  One  of  these, 
a  learned  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  wrote 
to  me :  '  Let  me  assure  you,  it  is  from  no  feeling  that  a  re- 
vision is  not  needed,  nor  yet  from  any  unwilhngness  to  in- 
voke aid  in  making  it  from  others  than  members  of  the 
Church  of  England,  that  I  have  been  led  to  this  view  of 
my  duty.'  Another  wrote :  '  Respecting  the  success  of  the 
enterprise  I  have  little  doubt.  The  result  of  the  best  schol- 
arship of  the  Church  in  England  and  America  will  com- 
mand assent,  and  the  opposition  will  speedily  subside.' 

First  Meeting  of  the  American  Revisers, 
On  the  7th  of  December,  1871,  a  number  of  American 
revisers  convened  in  New  York  for  the  purpose  of  effect- 
ing a  temporary  organization  and  adopting  a  Constitution. 
The  meeting  was  very  pleasant  and  harmonious.  The  fol- 
lowing extract  from  the  Minutes  contains  the  items  of  pub- 
lic interest : 

'At  a  meeting  of  gentlemen  invited  by  Eev.  Philip  SchafF,  D.D.,  to  meet 
this  day  at  his  study.  No.  40  Bible  House,  New  York,  for  the  pui-pose  of 
forming  an  organization  to  co-operate  with  the  British  Committee  in  the  re- 

B 


xviii  INTRODUCTIOX. 

vision  of  the  Authorized  English  Version  of  the  Scriptures,  the  following  per- 
sons were  present,  viz.  : 

'  Prof.  Philip  Schaff,  D.  D. ,  New  York ;  Prof  Henry  B.  Smith,  D.D. ,  New 
York  ;  Prof  Wm.  Henry  Green,  D.D.,  Princeton,  N.  J. ;  Prof  George  Em- 
len  Hare,  D.D.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. ;  Prof.  Charies  P.  Krauth, D.D.,  Philadel- 
phia ;  Rev.  Thomas  J.  Conant,  D.D.,  Brooklyn, N.  Y. ;  Prof.  George  E.  Day, 
D.D.,  New  Haven,  Conn. ;  Ezra  Abbot,  LL.D.,  Cambridge,  Mass. ;  Kev.  Ed- 
ward A.  Washburn,  D.D.,  New  York. 

'  Dr.  Howson,  Dean  of  Chester,  was  also  present  by  special  imitation,  and 
took  part  in  the  deliberations. 

'  Ex-President  Woolsey,  Prof.  Hackett,  Prof  Strong,  Prof.  Stowe,  and  oth- 
ers, were  prevented  from  attending,  but  expressed  by  letter  their  hearty  inter- 
est in  the  proposed  work,  and  their  readiness  to  co-operate. 

'  The  meeting  was  organized  by  the  appointment  of  Prof  Henry  B.  Smith 
as  Chairman,  and  Prof.  George  E.  Day  as  Secretary.     ****** 

Constitution. 

•  I.  The  American  Committee,  invited  by  the  British  Committee  engaged 
in  the  revision  of  the  Authorized  English  Version  of  the  Hoh'  Scriptures  to 
co-operate  with  them,  shall  be  composed  of  Biblical  scholars  and  divines  in 
the  United  States. 

'  II.  This  Committee  shall  have  the  power  to  elect  its  officers,  to  add  to 
its  number,  and  to  fill  its  own  vacancies. 

'III.  The  officers  shall  consist  of  a  President,  a  Corresponding  Secretary, 
and  a  Treasurer.  The  President  shall  conduct  the  official  correspondence 
with  the  British  revisers.  The  Secretary  shall  conduct  the  home  correspond- 
ence. 

'  IV.  New  members  of  the  Committee,  and  con-esponding  members,  must 
be  nominated  at  a  previous  meeting,  and  elected  unanimously  by  ballot. 

'V.  The  American  Committee  shall  co-operate  with  the  British  Compa- 
nies on  the  basis  of  the  principles  and  rules  of  revision  adopted  by  the  British 
Committee. 

'  VI.  The  American  Committee  shall  consist  of  two  companies,  the  one 
for  the  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  other 
for  the  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New  Testament. 

'  VII.  Each  Company  shall  elect  its  own  Cliairman  and  Eecording  Secre- 
tary. 

'  VIII.  The  British  Companies  will  submit  to  the  American  Companies, 
from  time  to  time,  such  portions  of  their  work  as  have  passed  the  first  revi- 
sion, and  the  American  Companies  will  transmit  their  criticisms  and  sug- 
gestions to  the  British  Companies  before  the  second  re\-ision. 

'  IX.  A  joint  meeting  of  the  American  and  British  Companies  shall  be 
held,  if  possible,  in  London,  before  final  action. 

'  X.  The  American  Committee  to  pay  their  own  expenses. 

'A  communication  from  Bishop  Ellicott,  D.D.,  to  Dr.  Schaff,  dated  Oc- 
tober 23, 1871,  was  read,  containing  the  following  resolution  of  the  British 
Committee : 


INTRODUCTION.  ^j^ 

'  '■^Resolution — That  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol  be  requested  to 
communicate  with  Dr.  Schaff  to  the  effect  that  the  work  of  the  Kew  Testa- 
ment revisers  is  at  present  only  tentative  and  provisional,  and  that  it  may 
be  considerably  altered  at  the  second  revision;  but  that,  upon  the  assurance 
of  Dr.  Schaff  that  the  work,  so  far  as  it  is  at  present  advanced,  will  be  con- 
sidered as  strictly  confidential,  the  company  will  send  a  sufficient  number  of 
copies  for  Dr.  Schaff  and  his  brother  revisers,  for  their  own  private  use,  the 
copies  to  be  in  no  way  made  public  beyond  themselves. 

'  "For  this  pui-pose  that  Dr.  Schaff  be  requested  to  send  the  names  and 
addresses  of  the  scholars  associated  with  him  in  this  matter  so  soon  as  the 
company  is  completely  formed.  "'***** 

On  the  evening  of  the  same  day  the  movement  was  pub- 
licly inaugurated  by  a  meeting  in  Calvary  Church,  Fourth 
Avenue,  Xew  York,  at  which  Dr. Washburn,  Dean  Howson, 
D.D.,  and  the  writer  made  addresses  on  the  subject  of  Bible 
Hevision  before  a  very  large  and  intelligent  audience,  in- 
cluding many  clergymen  from  different  denominations. 
Full  reports  of  the  meeting  were  published  in  the  Chris- 
tian Intelligencer,  the  Protestant  Churchman,  and  other 
papers. 

The  organization  of  the  American  Committee  was  duly 
reported.  Certain  difKculties  which  stood  in  the  way  of 
co-operation  were  removed  by  farther  correspondence  and 
personal  conference  of  the  writer  with  the  British  revisers 
on  a  recent  visit  to  England.  The  British  Committee,  at 
its  meeting  July  17, 1872,  took  the  following  action : 

'  Dr.  Schaff  having  communicated  to  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol 
the  following  as  the  names  of  the  American  revisers,  ....  it  was  resolved 
that  so  many  copies  of  the  revised  version  of  the  first  three  Gospels  be  in- 
trasted  to  Dr.  Schaff  for  the  use  of  the  above  named,  with  the  request  that 
they  be  regarded  as  private  and  confidential,  and  with  the  intimation  that 
the  work  itself  is  provisional  and  tentative,  and  likely  to  undergo  considerable 
modification.' 

The  copies  promised  in  the  above  resolution  were  duly 
received.  The  Old  Testament  Company  took  similar  ac- 
tion, and  intrusted  me  with  eleven  proof  copies  of  the  re- 
vised version  of  the  books  of  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  Levit- 
icus for  the  use  of  the  eleven  members  of  the  American 


XX  mTROBUCTIOX. 

Company  of  Old  Testament  revisers.  Other  portions  of 
the  revised  version  will  be  forwarded  as  soon  as  they  are 
finished. 

The  American  companies  will  hold  their  first  meeting 
for  active  work  October  4, 1872.  The  result  of  their  de- 
liberations will  in  dae  time  be  forwarded  to  the  British 
Committee  for  consideration  before  the  second  revision. 

When  tlie  whole  work  shall  be  completed,  it  will  go  to 
the  English-speaking  churches  for  their  adoption  or  rejec- 
tion. By  its  own  merits  it  will  stand  or  fall.  We  firmly 
believe  that  it  will  gradually  take  the  place  of  the  Author- 
ized Vei-sion. 

Character  of  the  English  Version.     The  Work  proposed. 

In  presenting  briefly  my  own  views  on  the  subject  of 
I'evision,  I  have  no  authority  to  speak  in  behalf  of  the 
American  revisers,  who  have  not  yet  fairly  begun  their 
work ;  but  I  apprehend  no  material  difiiculty  with  the 
British  Committee.  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  there  is 
a  general  disposition  among  us  to  retain  the  idiom,  gram  • 
mar,  and  vocabulary  of  the  Authorized  Version  so  far  as 
is  consistent  with  faithfulness  to  the  Greek  and  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  and  with  justice  to  the  present  stage  of  the 
English  language. 

The  popular  English  Bible  is  the  greatest  blessing  which 
the  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  centuiy  bestowed  upon 
the  Anglo-Saxon  race.  It  is,  upon  tlie  whole,  the  best  trans- 
lation ever  made,  not  excepting  even  Jerome's  Yulgate 
and  Luther's  Yei'sion.  It  is  not  the  production  of  a  single 
mind,  but  of  a  large  number  of  wise  and  good  men,  rep- 
resenting three  generations  in  the  most  eventful  and  pro- 
ductive period  of  modern  church  history.  It  is  '  the  pure 
well  of  English  undefiled.'  It  has  formed  the  style  and 
taste  of  the  English  classics.     It  has  a  hold  upon  the  pop- 


IXTRODUCTIOX.  xxi 

iilar  heart  which  it  can  never  lose.  Its  vocabulary  and 
phrases,  its  happy  blending  of  Saxon  force  and  Latin  dig- 
nity, its  uniform  chasteness,  earnestness,  and  solemnity,  its 
thoroughly  idiomatic  tone,  its  rhythmic  flow,  its  more  than 
poetic  beauty  and  harmony,  have  secured  the  admiration 
of  scholars  and  the  affection  of  whole  churches  and  nations 
in  which  it  is  used.  Even  in  the  Romish  communion,  a 
distinguished  English  apostate  from  Protestantism  could 
not  forget  its  marvellous  beauty  and  heavenly  music* 

*  The  remarkable  judgment  of  the  late  Dr.  F.  William  Faber  (often  falsely 
attributed  to  Dr.  John  Henry  Newman)  is  well  worth  quoting  in  full ;  '  Who 
will  say  that  the  uncommon  beauty  and  marvellous  English  of  the  Protestant 
Bible  is  not  one  of  the  great  strongholds  of  heresy  in  this  country  ?  It  lives 
on  the  ear  like  a  music  that  can  never  be  forgotten,  like  th6  sound  of  church 
bells,  which  the  convert  hardly  knows  how  he  can  forego.  Its  felicities  often 
seem  to  be  almost  things  rather  than  mere  words.  It  is  part  of  the  national 
mind,  and  the  anchor  of  national  seriousness.  Nay,  it  is  worshipped  with  a 
positive  idolatry,  in  extenuation  of  whose  grotesque  fanaticism  its  intrinsic 
beauty  pleads  availingly  with  the  man  of  letters  and  the  scholar.  The  mem- 
ory of  the  dead  passes  into  it.  The  potent  traditions  of  childhood  are  stereo- 
typed in  its  verses.  The  power  of  all  the  griefs  and  trials  of  a  man  is  hidden 
beneath  its  words.  It  is  the  representative  of  his  best  moments,  and  all  that 
there  has  been  about  him  of  soft,  and  gentle,  and  pure,  and  penitent,  and  good, 
speaks  to  him  for  ever  ont  of  his  English  Bible.  It  is  his  sacred  thing,  which 
doubt  has  never  dimmed,  and  controversy  never  soiled.  It  has  been  to  him 
all  along  as  the  silent,  but  oh  !  how  intelligible  A'oice  of  his  guardian  angel , 
and  in  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land  there  is  not  a  Protestant,  with  one 
spark  of  religiousness  about  him,  whose  spiritual  biography  is  not  in  his  Saxon 
Bible.  And  all  this  is  an  unhallowed  power!' — From  Faber's  Essay  on  The 
Interest  and  Characteristics  of  the  Lives  of  the  Saints,  p.  116,  prefixed  to  a 
Life  of  St.  Francis  of  Assisi  (1853),  which  forms  vol.  xxv.  of  the  Oratory 
series  of  the  Lives  of  Modern  Saints.  I  took  the  quotation  from  an  anony- 
mous reviewer  of  Convbeare  and  Howson's  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  in 
the  Dublin  Review  for  June,  18.')3,  p.  46G.  The  Roman  Catholic  reviewer 
admits  (p.  4G5  sq.)  that  the  '  Douay  version,  composed  as  it  was  under  heavy 
difficulties  and  the  greatest  disadvantages,  is,  upon  the  whole,  surprisingly 
accurate  and  exact  [?],  though  confessedly  far  from  scholar-like  as  a  literary 
performance,  and  as  deficient  in  pure  English  idiom  as  the  Protestant  version 
is  excellent  in  that  particular , '  but  then  he  goes  on  to  charge  the  latter  with 
doctrinal  unfairness,  instancing  the  well-known  passages  I  Cor.  xi.  27,  where 
»}  (Trlvy  TO  TTOTiipiov) — often  used  by  Komanists  as  an  argument  for  the  com- 
munion sub  una  specie — is  rendered  and;  Matt.  xix.  11,  oi  iravTig  x'^P^^'^h 
'all  men  can  not  receive  the  word;'  Gal.  i.  18,  IffToprjffai  UEvpov,  'to  see  Pe- 
ter.' 


xxii  INTRODUCTION. 

The  power  and  influence  of  this  version  can  not  be  esti- 
mated. Being  from  the  very  start  a  truly  national  work 
for  the  British  Isles,  it  has  gradually  assumed,  with  the  En- 
glish language  itself,  an  almost  cosmopolitan  character  and 
importance,  and  is  now  used  more  than  any  translation  in 
all  parts  of  the  globe.  Tlie  British  and  Foreign  Bible  So- 
ciety, or  the  American  Bible  Society,  probably  send  forth 
more  copies  of  the  English  Scriptures  than  are  printed  in 
all  other  languages  combined.  Eternity  alone  can  reveal 
how  many  millions  have  been  made  wise  unto  salvation 
through  the  instrumentality  of  this  version. 

To  substitute  a  new  popular  version  for  such  a  work 
would  be  almost  a  sacrilege,  certainly  an  ungrateful  task 
and  inevitable  failure. 

But  this  is  not  at  all  the  question.  The  present  move- 
ment contemplates  no  new  version,  but  simpl}'^  a  scholarly 
and  conscientious  revision,  in  the  spirit,  and,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, in  the  very  language,  of  the  old.  The  object  is  to 
make  a  good  translation  still  better,  more  accurate  and 
self-consistent,  and  to  bring  it  uf>  to  the  present  standard 
of  Biblical  scholarship. 

The  abstract  right  of  revision  can  not  be  disputed.  It 
is  the  duty  of  the  Church,  especially  the  Protestant,  to  give 
the  Bible  to  the  people  in  the  best  possible  form,  and  to 
adapt  existing  translations,  from  time  to  time,  to  the  pi'og- 
ress  in  Scripture  learning  and  the  inevitable  changes  of 
a  living  language.  Without  this  right  and  duty,  King 
James's  Version  of  1611  would  not  exist  at  all,  for  it  is  it- 
self the  result  of  several  revisions,  going  back — through  the 
Bishops'  Bible  (1568),  the  Geneva  Bible  (1557,  completed 
1560),  Cranmer's  Bible  (1539),  Matthew's  (or  Eogers's)  Bi- 
ble (1537),  Coverdale's  Bible  (1535  and  1537)— to  the  New 
Testament  (with  parts  of  the  Old  Testament)  of  Tyndale 


INTROaUCTIOK  xxiii 

(1525-1535),"'''  who  is  the  real  author,  as  well  as  martyr,  of 
the  English  version,f  and,  in  the  former  respect,  the  En- 
glish Luther.:}: 

The  7ieecl  and  desirableness  of  a  new  revision  are  now  al- 
most generally  admitted,  at  least  by  those  who  ai-e  best  ac- 
quainted with  the  Bible  in  its  original  languages.  The 
most  ardent  admirers  of  King  James's  Version  do  not  claim 
for  it  perfection  and  infallibility.  It  has  a  very  consider- 
able number  of  errors,  defects,  and  obscurities.  It  was  the 
best  translation  which  could  be  made  in  the  beginning  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  but  it  can  be  greatly  improved 
with  the  enlarged  facilities  of  the  present  age. 

The  only  debatable  question,  then,  is  as  to  the  proper 
time  and  best  mode  of  undertaking  this  important  and  de- 
sirable work.  A  few  years  ago  many  of  the  most  judi- 
cious friends  of  revision  would  have  said  that  the  pear  is 
not  ripe  yet,  although  fast  ripening ;  but  the  recent  move- 
ment in  Great  Britain  settles  the  question.  It  combines 
all  the  needful  scholarship,  ability,  authority,  and  co-o])- 
eration.  It  presents  the  most  favorable  juncture  which 
can  be  desired,  and  it  must  be  turned  to  the  best  account. 
The  greatest  difficulty  was  in  our  sectarian  divisions :  it  has 
been  removed  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  who  alone  can  so  move 
the  hearts  of  men  as  to  bring  Churchmen  and  Dissent- 
ers, Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Independents,  Methodists, 
Baptists,  and  others,  together  in  brotherly  harmony  and  co- 
operation. To  miss  the  glorious  opportunity  now  is  indef- 
initely to  postpone  the  great  work,  or  to  risk  the  multipli- 

*  For  details,  see  the  excellent  History  of  the  English  Bible,  b)'  Professor 
Westcott  (one  of  the  British  Committee  of  Revision),  London,  18G8. 

t  Wiclifte's  translation  was  not  made  from  the  original  Greek  and  Hebrew, 
but  from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  and  was  little  used,  if  used  at  all,  by  Tyndale. 

t  Westcott,  1.  c,  p.  G6,  pays  him  the  following  just  tribute :  '  Not  one  self- 
ish thought  mixed  with  his  magnificent  devotion.  No  treacherous  intrigues 
ever  shook  his  loyalty  to  his  king ;  no  intensity  of  distress  ever  obscured  his 
faith  in  Christ. ' 


xxiv  INTRODUCTIOX. 

cation  of  sectarian  versions — as  there  are  already  a  Baptist 
and  a  Unitarian  New  Testament.  Let  iis  by  all  means 
have  an  oecumenical  revision  now  when  we  can  have  it, 
which  shall  be  a  new  and  stronger  bond  of  miion  among 
the  many  branches  of  Anglo-Saxon  Christendom,  and  make 
the  good  old  Bible  clearer  and  dearer  to  the  people. 

Improvements. 
The  improvements  which  can  be  made,  without  in  the 
least  impairing  the  idiom  and  beauty,  or  disturbing  the 
sacred  associations,  of  the  Authorized  Yersion,  may  bo  con- 
sidered under  the  following  heads,  as  needing  revision :  the 
Text ;  Errors ;  Inaccuracies ;  Inconsistencies ;  Archaisms ; 
Proper  Xames ;  Accessories ;  Arrangement. 

1.  The  Text. 
To  restore,  from  the  best  critical  resources  now  made 
accessible,  an  older  and  purer  text  in  the  place  of  the  com- 
paratively late  and  corrupt  textus  recejptus.  In  other  words, 
to  substitute,  in  the  New  Testament,  an  ante-Nicene  for  a 
mediaeval  text. 

The  Hebrew  text,  having  been  settled  long  ago  by  the  Masovets,  presents 
very  little  difficulty.  It  is  stated  that  there  are  only  1314:  various  readings 
of  importance  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  only  147  of  them  affect  the 
sense.  With  critical  conjectures  (such  as  proposed  by  Hitzig,  I\Ierx,  etc.)  a 
popular  version  has  nothing  to  do.  When  the  Authorized  Version  follows 
the  Septuagint  and  the  Vulgate  against  the  Hebrew  (as  in  the  important  pas- 
sage Job  xix.  26),  the  Hebrew  text  must  of  course  have  the  preference. 

The  case  is  very  different  in  the  New  Testament.  The  Authorized  Ver- 
sion, like  all  other  Protestant  versions,  is  made  from  the  'received  text,'  so 
called,  which  dates  from  the  first  printed  edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  by 
Erasmus  (1516),  especially  bis  fourth  edition  (1527,  which  contains  some 
emendations  in  the  Apocalypse,  derived  from  the  Complutensian  Polyglot), 
was  several  times  re-edited,  with  a  few  improvements,  by  Stephens,  of  Paris, 
and  then  by  Beza,  of  Geneva,  and  boldly  proclaimed  the  ''textus  ah  omnibus 
receptus'  by  the  enterprising  publishers,  Elzevir,  of  Leyden  (in  their  second 
edition,  1633),  and  which  ruled,  almost  undisputed,  as  a  part  of  Protestant 
orthodoxy  (as  the  Latin  Vulgate  as  a  part  of  Romish  orthodoxy),  until,  after 
Bentley  and  Bengel  had  shaken  confidence  in  it,  it  was  set  aside  by  Lachmann 


INTRODUCTIOX.  ^^^ 

(1831)  and  his  followers,  to  make  room  for  an  older  and  better  text  since 
brought  to  light.* 

The  'received  text'  was  hastily  derived,  in  the  infant  period  of  the  printed 
Bible,  from  a  few  and  faulty  cursive  MSS. ,  when  the  best  uncial  MSS.  and 
the  oldest  versions  (except  a  corrupt  text  of  the  Vulgate)  were  not  yet  known, 
before  the  patristic  quotations  were  examined,  and  before  even  the  tirst  prin- 
ciples of  textual  criticism  were  understood,  t 

Since  that  time  an  immense  material  for  textual  criticism  has  been  gath- 
ered, compared,  weighed,  and  sifted  by  the  indefatigable  labors  of  Mill,  Ben- 
gel,  Wetstein,  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  and  others.  We 
have  noAv  as  complete  an  apparatus  as  is  necessary  to  settle  the  text  in  all  its 
essential  features,  and  there  is  no  prospect  that  any  new  discoveries  (even  as 
important  as  that  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  in  1859)  will  materially  alter  the 
result,  unless  some  future  Tischendorf  should  be  so  fortunate  as  to  find  the 
apostolic  autographs ;  but  this,  in  view  of  the  perishable  nature  of  papyrus, 
on  which  they  were  written,  is  next  to  impossible.  Over  1500  MSS.  of  the 
Greek  Testament  have  been  more  or  less  compared,!  and  from  100,000  to 
120,000  various  readings  have  been  accumulated  from  all  textual  sources  to 
the  present  day.  Fortunately,  these  variations  do  not  unsettle  a  single  article 
of  Christian  foith  and  duty ;  they  only  establish  the  essential  integrity  of  the 
apostolic  text,  and  increase  the  focilities  of  determining,  approximately,  the 
original  reading,  without  resorting  (as  is  the  case  with  classical  authors)  to 
precarious  subjective  conjectures.  On  the  most  important  variations  which 
affect  the  sense,  and  which  alone  deserve  consideration  in  a  73o/??«/«»- version, 
the  leading  critics  of  the  day  are  now  quite  or  nearly  agreed.  From  the  un- 
cial MSS.  (especially  the  two  oldest,  the  Sinaitic  and  the  Vatican,  or  X  and  B, 
both  made  accessible  now  to  all  by  the  quasi  fac-simile  editions  of  Tischen- 

*  Tyndale  used  the  edition  of  Erasmus,  the  Geneva  revisers  the  Latin  ver- 
sion of  Beza  (first  ed.  1 557).  Comp.  Westcott,  Hist,  of  the  Eug.  Bible,  p.  288. 
On  the  precise  Greek  text  from  which  King  James's  revision  is  derived,  see 
the  Note  below.  On  the  Continent,  the  first  Elzevir  or  Leyden  edition  of  1 G24 
(from  which  the  second  edition  of  1633  differs  very  slightly)  is  understood  to 
be  the  '  received  text ;'  while  in  England  the  term  is  more  frequently  applied 
to  the  third  edition  of  Kobert  Stephens,  which  appeared  in  1550,  called  the 
'  royal  edition.'  The  Greek  text  in  both  is  substantially  the  same.  Including 
minute  variations  in  orthography,  they  differ  in  278  places  (Scrivener,  N.  T. 
Cambr.  1860,  p.  vi. ;  Westcott,  in  Smith's  Bibl.  Diet.  iii.  2132,  Am.  edit.). 
Where  the  Elzevir  edition  differs  from  Stephens,  it  generally  agrees  with  Beza. 

t  Beza  had,  it  is  true,  two  uncial  codd.,  viz.,  Codex  D  or  Bezte,  of  the 
Gospels  and  Acts,  and  Cod.  D  Claromontanus,  of  the  Epistles,  and  knew  also 
the  Peshito  and  Arabic  versions,  but  he  made  very  little  use  of  them,  being 
more  concerned  for  his  Latin  translation  and  notes.  His  immediate  success- 
ors neglected  even  these  important  sources  of  criticism. 

X  Mr.  Scrivener  {Introd.  to  Bibl.  Crit.,  p.  225)  states  the  total  number  of 
manuscripts  of  the  Greek  Testament  known  and  used  to  be  1583,  of  which 
127  are  uncial,  1456  cursive,  but  most  of  the  uncial  and  many  of  the  cursive 
MSS.  are  incomplete,  and  67  must  be  deducted  for  being  counted  double. 


XXVI 


INTRODUCTIOX. 


clorf  and  Vercellone),  the  earliest  versions  (especially  the  Itala,A^ulgate,  and 
Peshito),  and  the  quotations  of  the  Kicene  and  ante-Nicene  fathers  (Origen, 
Tertullian,  Irenreus,  etc.),  we  are  now  able  to  reconstruct,  with  a  tolerable  de- 
gree of  certaint}',  the  oldest  attainable  text,  Mhich  is,  upon  the  whole,  much 
simpler  and  stronger  than  the  post-Kicene  and  medieval  tcxtus  recepius,  and 
free  from  liturgical  and  other  glosses. 

This  ante-Nicene  text  should  be  made  the  basis  of  the  revision,  at  least  in 
all  such  cases  where,  as  Ellicott  says,  '  critical  evidence  and  the  consent  of 
the  best  editors  point  out  the  necessity  of  the  change.' 

This  canon  must,  of  course,  exclude  the  spurious  passage  of  the  three  wit- 
nesses, 1  John  V.  7,  which  was  omitted  also  at  first  by  Erasmus,  Luther,  and 
Tyndale.*  The  doxology  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  INIatt.  vi.,will  be  less  easily 
surrendered.  Sections  which  seem  to  be  part  of  primitive  apostolic  tradition, 
though  not  of  apostolic  composition,  as  the  conclusion  of  Mark  (xvi.  9-20). 
and  the  pericope,  John  vii.  53,  to  viii.  1 1 ,  may  be  retained  in  brackets  or  in 
italics.  In  debatable  readings,  where  the  witnesses  are  equally  or  almost 
equally  divided,  as  between  jiovoyiviiQ  Siioq  and  )j.ovoyivt)Q  v\6c,  John  i.  18, 
the  reading  of  the  textus  receptus  should  be  retained,  but  the  variation  marked 
on  the  margin.  Sometimes  doubtful  readings  of  great  doctrinal  importance 
receive  new  confirmation,  as  tov  5tov  (for  Kvpiov)  in  Acts  xx.  28,  which  is 
sustained  by  Aleph  and  B,  and  furnishes  one  of  the  strongest  arguments 
for  the  divinity  of  Christ,  ampl}-  compensating  for  the  loss  of  S^ioc  for  og  in 
1  Tim.  iii.  16  (probably  a  quotation  from  a  primitive  Christian  hymn).t 
The  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  receives  new  support  from 
the  Sinaitic  MS.  by  its  omission  of  the  words  '  in  Ephesus'  in  the  address 
(i.  1),  as  it  con-oborates  the  view  that  it  was  a  circular  letter,  and  therefore 
free  from  those  personal  allusions  and  salutations  which  we  should  otherwise 
expect. 

The  text  of  the  Apocalypse,  of  which  we  have  fewer  sources  than  of  any 
other  book  of  the  N.  T.,  has  been  cleared  up  in  several  important  passages  by 
the  Codices  Alexandrians  (A),  Ephra;mi  Syri  rescriptus  (C),  Sinaiticus  (X), 
Vaticanus  No.  20G6,  a  manuscript  of  the  seventh  or  eighth  century,  called  B 
of  the  ApocaljTJse  (the  great  Cod.  B  Vaticanus  does  not  contain  the  Apoca- 
lypse), the  uncial  palimpsest  (P)  discovered  and  made  legible  by  Tischendorf 
in  18G2,  J  and  published  in  the  sixth  volume  of  his  Monumenta  sacra  inedita 
(1 8G9),  and  the  rediscovery  by  Prof.  Delitzsch  of  Reuchlin's  Codex§ — the  only 
one  for  the  Apocah-pse  which  Erasmus  used  for  his  first  edition,  and  used  with 

*  Tyndale's  edition  of  1534,  as  given  in  Bagster's  English  Hexapla,has  the 
disputed  passage  in  italics. 

t  Tischendorf,  however,  in  his  8th  crit.  ed.,  gives  the  preference  to  Kvplov, 
on  the  authority  of  A,  C*,  D,  E,  Irenajus  (Lat.  interpr.),  etc. 

X  When  Tischendorf  applied  his  chemical  process  to  the  palimpsest,  the 
Greek  Archimandrite  (now  Bishop)  Porfiri  Uspenski,  who  had  brought  this 
and  other  MSS.  from  his  Oriental  travels,  exclaimed  ^Ecce  Lazarus  e  se- 
pulchro  redtix!' 

§  See  Delitzsch,  Handschriftliche  Funde,  1861  and  1862.  Tregelles  has 
also  examined  this  Codex,  which  was  found  in  the  library  of  the  Prince  of 
CEttingen-Wallerstein. 


INTRODUCTION. 


XXV 11 


great  haste.  I  will  mention  a  fe\y  examples.  In  ch.  i.  9,  '  who  am  also 
your  brother,'  the  improper  ''also'  rests  on  a  mei'e  misunderstanding  of  Eras- 
mus's copyist.  In  ch.  i.  11,  tlie  words  'which  are  in  Asia'  are  an  interpola- 
tion of  Erasmus  from  the  Vulgate  :  quce  sunt  in  Asia.  Similar  additions  of 
Erasmus  from  the  I^atin,  which  have  no  support  in  the  Greek  text,  are  found 
in  ch.  ii.  3  ('  and  hast  not  fainted,'  '  et  non  defecisti'),  in  ii.  20  ('  a  few  things,' 
^pauca),  in  ii.  24  (the  disturbing  '■and'),  and  in  several  other  passages.  In 
ch.  V.  10,  the  Greek  reads  '  thou  hast  made  them  {ovtovq,  i.  e.  the  four  and 
twenty  elders)  kings  (a  kingdom)  and  priests  unto  our  God,'  and  '  the;/  (the 
elders)  '  shall  rule  {^iaaiXtvaovaiv)  upon  the  earth ;'  but  the  A.  V.  turns 
'  thevi  into  '  us, '  and  '  they'  into  '  we, '  because  Erasmus  followed  here  the  lat- 
er cormpted  text  of  the  Vulgate  in  opposition  to  Eeuchlin's  Greek  MS.  In 
xvi.  14,  'the  kings  of  the  earth  and  of  the  whole  world,'  the  supei-fluous 
words  '  of  the  edrth  and'  are  to  be  traced  to  a  mistake  of  the  transcriber,  as 
the  Greek  reads  simply  roi'C  jiaaiXtic  tTiq  oiKovfisvijQ  o\i]g.  In  ch.  xvii.  8, 
the  perplexing  translation, '  the  beast  that  was,  and  is  not,  and  yet  is'  (from 
the  false  reading  Kaiirtp  tan),  must  now  be  corrected  into  '  the  beast  that 
was,  and  is  not,  and  yet  shall  come'  (the  best  authorities  reading  kui  irapiaTai 
— Cod.  Sin.  Kai  ttclXiv  irdpeffrat,  shall  come  a<jain.  Compare  ix'tWu  avafial- 
viiv  tK  tFjq  djivffffov,  in  the  preceding  clause).* 

Note  on  the  Greek  Text  of  the  English  Version. — It  is  a  question 
of  some  interest  and  importance  to  ascertain  what  edition  of  the  Greek  text 
was  chiefly  used  by  King  James's  translators.  They  left  us  no  direct  infor- 
mation ;  they  paid  little  or  no  attention  to  textual  criticism,  which  was  then 
in  its  infancy,  but  we  know  what  resources  were  then  available.  As  they 
finished  their  work  (IGll)  thirteen  j'ears  before  the  first  Elzevir  edition 
(1G24)  appeared,  they  must  have  used  the  later  editions  of  Stephens  and 
Beza,  which  had  then  superseded  the  editions  of  Erasmus. 

The  third  edition  of  Eobert  Stephens,  called  ediiio  regia,  was  printed  in 
Paris,  and  the  fourth  at  Geneva,  1551  ;  the  latter,  with  the  exception  of  a 
few  passages,  is  a  mere  reprint,  in  inferior  style,  but  it  is  the  first  which  con- 
tains our  versicular  division.  The  text  of  Stephens  (1550)  has  often  been 
reproduced  in  England,  most  recently  by  F.  H.  Scrivener  (18G0  and  1872), 
who  gives  also  the  readings  of  Beza  (professedly  of  15G5  ;  but  see  the  letter 
of  Prof.  Abbot  below),  of  the  Elzevirs  (1G24),  Tischendorf,  Lachmann,  and 
Tregelles. 

From  Beza  there  appeared,  before  his  death  (1G03),  four  folio  editions  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  including  the  Vulgate,  his  new  Latin  translation,  and 
exegetical  notes,  printed  by  Henry  Stephens  at  Geneva,t  and  dedicated  to 

'"  Comp.  an  art.  of  Dr.  Conant  on  the  Greek  Text  of  the  Apocalypse,  in  the 
Baptist  Quarterly,  vol.  iv.  No.  2,  and  Tregelles's  Apocalypse,  edit.  1844,  and 
now  his  last  edition,  concluding  his  Greek  Testament,  1872.  Tischendorf 
has  ndt  yet  completed  the  second  volume  of  his  eighth  edition,  which  will 
contain  the  Apocalypse. 

t  We  have  from  Beza  also  several  small  editions,  which  omit  the  Vulgate 
(except  in  the  3d  ed.),  and  give  marginal  glosses  extracted  from  his  com- 
mentary.    They  are  dedicated  to  Prince  Conde.     Reuss  (Gesckichte  des  N. 


xxviii  IXTRODUCTIOK 

Queen  Elizabeth,  viz.  edit.  i.  (called  ii.*),  A.D.  15G5,  which  is  based  upon 
the  fourth  edition  of  Stephens;  ed.  ii.  (iii.),  ir)82,  much  improved  by  the 
readings  of  the  important  Codices  Beza3  (D  Gosp.)  and  Claromontanus  (D 
Epp.),  and  the  comparison  of  the  Peshito  and  Arabic  versions  ;  ed.  iii.  (iv.), 
1589  (also  under  the  date  1588),  chiefly  a  reprint  of  the  third;  ed.  iv.  (v.), 
1598,  which  diifers  but  little  from  the  third,  is  less  accurate,  and  was  re- 
printed at  Cambridge,  1642.t 

It  is  almost  certain,  at  the  outset,  that  the  last  editions  of  Beza  were  the 
main  basis  of  the  A.  V.,  not  only  because  they  were  the  latest  and  best,  but 
also  because  Beza,  the  surviving  patriarch  of  the  reformers,  exerted,  by  his 
Latin  version  and  exegetical  notes,  a  marked  influence  upon  our  translators  •,% 
even  his  explanatory  or  harmonistic  interpolations  in  Apoc.  xi.  1  (/cai  o  ayye.- 
\oQ  iKSTiiKii);  Matt.  i.  1 1 ;  John  xix.  13,  found  a  place  in  the  text,  or  at  least 
in  the  margin  of  the  A.  V. 

A  closer  examination  confirms  this  supposition ;  but  there  is  as  yet  no 
agreement  as  to  the  precise  extent  to  which  the  A.  V.  depends  upon  Beza,  or 
sides  with  Stephens,  or  dissents  from  both.  Scrivener  {A  Supplement  to  the 
Authorized  Version,  pp.  7,  8),  Westcott  (art.  New  Test,  in  Smith's  Bible  Diet. 
iii.  2132,  note,  Am.  ed.),  and  Ellicott  {Revision  of  the  N.  T.  ch.  ii.)  main- 
tain that  the  A.  V.  is  derived  from  Beza's  third  (1582)  or  fourth  (1589)  edi- 
tion, and  from  Stephens's  third  (1550)  or  fourth  (1551),  and  that  in  some  GO 
places  it  sides  with  Beza  against  Stephens,  in  some  28  with  Stephens  against 
Beza,  while  it  differs  from  both  in  less  than  half  a  dozen  places.  But  ac- 
cording to  Hudson  (Critical  Greek  and  English  Concordance  of  the  N.T.  p. 
xiii.),  who  takes  Beza's  fifth  edition  (1598)  as  the  basis,  the  A.  V.  agrees  with 
Beza  versus  Stephens's  third  in  about  80  places,  with  Stephens  versus  Beza 
in  about  40,  and  departs  from  both  in  about  a  dozen  places.  Prof.  Abbot, 
of  Harvard  University,  who  has  access  to  all  the  editions  of  Beza  (except  the 
third,  1582)  and  Stephens,  and  who,  of  all  American  scholars,  is  best  qualified 
to  ascertain  the  facts  in  the  case,  has  at  my  request  carefully  investigated 
this  point,  and  kindly  furnished  me  with  another  statement,  which,  though 
not  professing  to  be  absolutely  exhaustive,  is  more  complete  and  accurate 
than  any  that  has  hitherto  been  published,  to  the  eff'ect  that '  the  Authorized 
Version  agrees  with  Beza's  text  of  1589  against  Stephens's  of  1550  in  about 
90  places ;  with  Stephens  against  Beza  in  about  40 ;  and  in  ft-om  30  to  40 
places,  in  most  of  which  the  variations  are  of  a  trivial  character,  it  differs 

T.)  says  that  they  vary  in  tke  te.xt,  and  were  printed  in  Geneva,  though  often 
erroneously  assigned  to  Paris. 

*  Beza  counts  his  Latin  edition  of  1557  (the  title-page  gives  155G,  the  last 
page  1557)  as  editio  prima ;  but,  as  it  does  not  give  the  Greek  text,  it  ought 
not  to  be  counted. 

t  Tregelles,  Scrivener,  Westcott,  and  Bleek  {Einleitung  in  d.  N.  T.  p.  77G), 
following  Mill  and  Michaelis,  speak  also  of  an  edition  of  1576.  But  there  is 
no  place  for  such  an  edition  in  either  series  of  Beza's  texts.  Wetstein  {Pro- 
leg,  p.  14G)  and  Eeuss  {Geschichte  des  N.  T.  p.  411)  give  the  correct  account. 

t  As  he  had  done  before  upon  the  Genevan  version  (1557  and  15G0). 
See  the  examples  in  Westcott's  History  of  the  English  Bible,  p.  294  seq. 


INTRODUCTIOX.  xxix 

from  both.'  With  his  permission,  I  will  give  the  specifications  from  a  letter 
to  me,  dated  Cambridge,  Mass.,  Sept.  23,  1872,  for  which  he  deserves  the 
thanks  of  Biblical  scholars  : 

'I.  The  A.V.  agrees  with  Beza  against  Stephens  in  Matt.  xxi.  7;  xxiii. 
13,  14.  Mark  vi.  29;  viii.  14,  24  ;  ix.  40  ;  xii.  20 ;  xiii.  28.  Luke  i.  35  ;  ii. 
22  ;  iii.  23,  35  (vi.  9,  trans,  and  note);  viii.  29  (not  trans.);  x.  6  (not  trans.), 
22;  XV.  26;  xvii.  36;  xx.  47.  John  viii.  25;  xii.  17;  xiii.  31;  xvi.  33; 
xviii.  24.  Acts  (v.  24,  trans,  and  note)  ix.  35  ;  xv.  32  (?)  ;  xvii.  25  ;  xxii. 
25  ;  xxiv.  13,  14  (?),  18,  19  ;  xxv.  5  ;  xxvi.  3,  18  ;  xxvii.  12,  13.  Rom.  vii. 
6  ;  viii.  11 ;  xii.  11 ;  xvi.  20,  27  (?).  1  Cor.  v.  11 ;  xv.  31.  2  Cor.  iii.  1  ;, 
V.  4  ;  vi.  15  ;  vii.  12,  16  ;  x.  10  ;  xi.  10  ;  xiii.  4.  Eph.  vi.  7.  Col.  i.  2,  24 ; 
ii.  13.  1  Thess.  (ii.  13,  trans,  and  note)  ii.  15.  2  Thess.  ii.  4.  1  Tim.  i.  4. 
Tit.  ii.  10.  Heb.  ix.  1,  2;  x.  10;  xii.  22,  2Z,2>unct.  James  ii.  18;  iv.  13% 
13'' ;  V.  12.  1  Pet.  i.  4 ;  ii.  21 ;  iii.  11,21  (?).  2  Pet.  iii.  7.  1  John  i.  4  ; 
ii.  23  (A.V.  in  italics);  iii.  16.  2  John  3.  3  John  7.  Jude  19,  24.  Eev. 
ii.  14  ;  iii.  1 ;  v.  11 ;  vii.  3, 10;  viii.  11 ;  xi.  1,  2,  14;  xiii.  3  ;  xiv.  18  ;  xvi. 
5,  14.  In  Dr.  Westcott's  list,  in  Smith's  Diet,  of  the  Bible  [art.  New  Test.'], 
Acts  xxi.  8  ;  Rev.  vii.  2,  14  ;  xvii.  4,  and  in  Scrivener's  list  {Siipjilement  to  the 
Auth.  Version,  p.  8),  Rev.  xix.  14,  seem  to  be  erroneously  placed  here.  Matt. 
ix.  33 ;  Acts  i.  4,  are  uncertain. 

'II.  The  A.V.  agrees  with  Stephens,  in  preference  to  Beza's  text  of  1589, 
in  Matt.  i.  23  (vi.  1,  Beza's  trans,  and  note;  his  text  is  Stephens's).  Mark 
i.  21 ;  xvi.  14  (?),  20.  Luke  vii.  45  ;  ix.  15.  John  iv.  5  ;  xviii.  20.  Acts 
ii.  36 ;  iv.  25,  27,  36  ;  vii.  16  ;  xvi.  7,  17;  xxi.  11 ;  xxv.  6  ;  xxvi,  8,  punct. 
Rom.  i.  29;  v.  17;  viii.  21,  punct. ;  xi.  28.  1  Cor.  vii.  29,  xi.  22, punct.; 
XV.  55,  2  Cor.  i.  6  ;  iii.  14  (?)  ;  viii.  24.  Gal.  iv.  1 7.  Phil.  i.  23  ;  ii.  24  ; 
iii.  20.  Col.  i.  2.  1  Tim.  vi.  15.  2  Tim.  ii.  22.  Tit.  ii.  7.  Heb.  ix.  28; 
X.  2.  James  iii.  6.  1  Pet.  v.  10.  2  Pet.  i.  1  (aujTiipog  7ij.iwv).  Rev.  vi.  12 ; 
ix.  1 9  (but  Beza's  trans,  and  note  agree  with  Stephens).  In  Dr.  Westcott's 
list,  1  Pet.  ii.  21 ;  iii.  21  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  12;  Rev.  ix.  5;  xii.  14;  xiv.  2;  x\nii. 
6 ;  xix.  1,  are  wrongly  jilaced  here.  1  Cor.  iii.  3  ;  x.  28,  adduced  by  Scriv- 
ener, appear  to  be  merely  cases  of  typographical  error  in  Beza's  text.  Matt. 
XX.  15 ;   1  Cor.  xi.  1 ;  Rev.  iv.  10,  are  not  decisive. 

'  III.  The  A.V.  follows  a  reading  found  neither  in  Stephens  (1 550)  or  Beza 
(1589),  in  Matt.  ii.  11 ;  x.  10.  Mark  iv.  18  ;  vi.  4  (?) ;  xiv.  43.  Luke  iii. 
31 ;  vi.  37  (Vulg.)  :  viii.  31  ;  xvii.  35  ;  xx.  31,  32  ;  xxii.  45  (?).  John  v.  5  ; 
vii.  9,  12  ;  viii.  6,  42  ;  ix.  25  ;  xii.  13,  26,  34  (?)  ;  xvi.  25  (A.V.  ed.  1611)  ; 
xviii.  1  (?),  15  (?).  Acts  iii.  3  ;  vi.  3  (?) ;  vii.  44  (Vnlg.)  ;  viii.  13  ;  xix.  20 
(Vulg.)  ;  xxi.  8  (Beza's  trans,  and  note)  ;  xxvi.  6  (?) ;  xxvii.  29.  Rom.  vi.  3 
(mere  oversight  ?).  Eph.  vi.  24  (A.V.  ed.  1611).  Phil.  iv.  12.  1  Thess.  v.  4 
(Vulg.).  Philem.  7.  James  iv.  15.  2  Pet.  i.  1  (Si/zwv,  and  y'lfiaJv  omitted 
after  Otov) ;  ii.  9.     Rev.  ^^i.  2  (?)  ;  xvii.  4. 

'A  collation  of  Beza's  fifth  edition  (1598)  is  given  in  Bagster's  Critical  New 
Testament,  Greek  and  English  (1842).  That  edition  is  not  accurately  print- 
ed, but  the  intentional  changes  from  the  text  of  1 589  are  few. 

'  It  is  necessary  to  obseiwe  that  the  collation  of  Beza's  edition  of  1565,  given 
by  Scrivener  in  his  Introduction  (pp.  304-311)  and  in  his  Greek  Testament, 
is  not  to  be  trusted.  It  agrees  neither  with  the  octavo  nor  the  folio  edition 
published  by  Beza  in  1565.  It  is  impossible  that  he  should  have  used  the 
text  of  either  of  those  editions  in  making  the  collation  Avhich  he  has  given. 
He  has  mistaken  a  copy  of  some  other  edition  (perhaps  wanting  the  title- 
page,  or  with  a  folse  title-page  supplied)  for  the  real  Beza  of  1565.  The 
readings  ascribed,  in  his  Introduction,  to  Beza,  1565,  differ  from  Beza's  folio 
edition  of  that  j^ear  in  1 1 1  places,  but  in  only  about  1.")  jilaces  from  his  octavo 
editions  of  1580  and  1590.  Thev  do  not  agree  so  well  with  the  ediiiou  of 
1567.     That  of  1 603  I  have  not  seen. 


XXX  INTUODUCTIOK 

'  The  erroneous  references  of  Dr.  Westcott  pointed  out  above  were  appar- 
ently derived  from  Scrivener's  collation  ;  and  in  a  note  in  the  American  edi- 
tion of  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary  (p.  2132),  misled  by  Scrivener,  I  wrongly  re- 
ferred them  to  Beza's  text  of  1565.' 


2.  Errors. 
To  correct  acknowledged  errors,  whether  of  typography, 
or  English  Grammar,  or  translation. 

(a.)  Misprints. 

Examples :  '  Strain  at  a  gnat,'  for  '  strain  om<,'  Matt,  xxiii.  24  (oivWXovriq 
rhv  Kwvojira) ;* — ^ broidered'  (the  ed.  of  1611  and  other  early  edd. :  ''braid- 
ed''), for  ^braided  (plaited)  hair,'  1  Tim.  ii.  9; — 'and  she  went  into  the  city,' 
for  'he,'  Ruth  iii.  15  (see  the  Hebrew)-, — 'awake  my  love,  till  he  please,'  for 
'she,'  Cant.  ii.  7  (in  the  Hebrew). 

Many  other  typographical  errors  of  the  edition  of  1611 ,  which  was  fiir  from 
being  correct,  have  long  since  been  silently  removed  by  subsequent  editions, 
in  England  and  in  America,  yet  not  so  as  to  secure  uniformity ;  e.  g. :  'hoops 
of  the  pillars,'  for  'hooks'  (Exod.  xxxviii.  11);  'pilaine,'  for  'plague'  (Lev.  xiii. 
56);  'Jet'  the  roll,'  for  'fetch'  (Jer.  xxxvi.  21);  'shewed  them  by  the  pi'oph- 
ets,'  for  'hewed'  (Hos.  vi.  5);  'rejected  verses,'  for  '  recited'  (Ecclus.  xliv.  5); 
'approved  to  death,'  for  'appointed'  (1  Cor.  xii.  28);  'helps  in  governments,' 
for  'helps,  governments'  (1  Cor.  xii.  28) ;  'vinegar,'  for  'vineyard'  (Luke  xiii. 
7,  in  the  so-called  '  vinegar  edition'  of  Oxford,  171 7).  t  The  variations  of  the 
second  edition,  1613,  from  the  first,  1611,  amount  to  about  375;  in  Dr.Blay- 
ney's  edition  of  1769,  which  is  regarded  as  the  standard  edition,  116  errors 
Avere  detected  by  the  editors  of  the  Eyre  and  Strahan  edition,  1813.  The 
committee  appointed  by  the  American  Bible  Society  in  1818  found  many  er- 
rors and  inconsistencies  in  the  best  English  editions. J 

*  Dean  Alford,  in  his  Commentary,  defends  the  Authorized  Version  by  the 
strained  explanation:  'strain  (out  the  wine)  at  (tlie  occurrence  of)  a  gnat,' 
but  in  his  English  version  of  the  Greek  Testament  (1869)  he  adopts  out  for 
at.  All  the  other  English  versions  (except  that  of  Rheims)  read  '  strain  out.' 
Bishop  Lowth  remarks  :  '  The  impropriety  of  the  preposition  has  wholly  de- 
stroyed the  meaning  of  the  phrase, '  which  refers  to  the  use  of  a  strainer. 
See  my  annotations  to  Lange  on  Matthew,  p.  408,  note  16,  p.  413. 

t  In  a  copy  of  the  second  issue  of  the  edition  of  1611  (in  possession  of  Dr. 
Eadie,  at  Glasgow)  I  saw  even  Judas  for  Jesus  in  Matt.  xxvi.  36.  In  the 
Jirst  issue,  twenty-one  words  of  Exod.  xiv.  10  are  printed  twice.  In  an  edi- 
tion of  1013,  the  word  not  is  omitted  in  Lev.  xix.  10;  1  Cor.  xi.  17:  and  2 
Tim.  iv.  16. 

t  See  the  Report  of  the  History  arid  Recent  Collation  of  the  English  Ver- 
sion of  the  Bible :  presented  by  the  Committee  on  Versions  to  the  Board  of 
Managers  of  the  American  Bible  Society,  and  adopted  May  1,  1851,  p.  11 
seq.  The  Committee  on  Versions  (including  such  scholars  as  Drs.  Edward 
Robinson,  Samuel  H.  Turner,  and  John  M'Clintock)  spent  three  years  of 
labor  and  pains  in  correcting  misprints,  and  improving  the  orthography,  cap- 


INTRODUCTION. 


XXXI 


The  words  '  ware  of  (Acts  xiv.  G  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  50 ;  Neh.  x.  31),  for  '  aware 
of  (Cant.  vi.  12;  Jer.  1.  24;  Luke  xi.  4-1);  '■horse  bridles,'  for  '■horses  bri- 
dles' (so  the  Greek),  Kev.  xiv.  20;  comp.  ^ horse  heels,'  Gen.  xlix.  17,  and 
'  horse  hoofs, '  Judges  v,  22  ;  and  '  throughly, '  for  '  thoroughly, '  which  have  been 
corrected  in  some  editions,  are  not  misprints,  but  archaisms.  The  same  is 
true  of  '  John  Baptist,'  for  '  John  the  Baptist'  (comp.  Matt.  xiv.  8  ;  xvi.  14  ; 
xvii.  13 ;  Mark  vi.  24,  25 ;  viii.  28  ;  Luke  vii.  20,  28,  33,  in  Tyndale,  Cran- 
mer,  the  Genevan,  and  the  Bishops'  Bible)  ;  '  diddest,'  for  '■didst'  (in  Acts  vii. 
28,  foUind  also  in  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  the  Genevan,  and  the  Bishops'  Bible) , 
^sometimes,'  for  ^so7ne  time'  (i.  e.  once,  formerly,  Eph.  v.  8).  But  these  ar- 
chaisms should  all  be  removed,  and  they  have  been  corrected  in  many  editions. 

(6.)  Errors  of  English  Grammar  (which  is  not  as  good  as  the  vocabulary 
of  the  Authorized  Version). 

Examples  :  C/ier««6u«s  (confusion  of  Heb.  with  Eng.  plural),  for  cherubim  or 
cherubs;  as  also  seraphims,  Nethinims,  Anakims  (Gen.  iii.  24;  Isa.  vi.  2,  G; 
Heb.  ix.  5,  etc.). — '■Whom  say  ye  that  I  am,'  for  Who  (Matt.  xvi.  15  ;  Mark 
viii.  27,  20).— His  (archaic),  for  its  (Matt.  v.  13;  Mark  ix.  50;  Luke  xiv. 
34,  etc.). — 'This  people  who  knowcth  not,'  for  '■know  not'  (John  vii.  49). — 
'Ye  should  have  hearkened  unto  me  .  .  .  and  to  have  gained,'  etc.,  for  'and 
{so)  have  gained,'  etc.  (Acts  xxvii.  21). 

(c.)  Mistranslations. 

Matt.  V.  21,  27,  33,  ^by  them  of  old  time,'  instead  of  '■to  them'  (to~iq  ap- 
XatotQ,  to  the  ancients,  is  taken  as  dative  by  all  the  English  versions  except 
the  Authorized,  which  followed  Beza ;  the  ablative  use  is  very  rare  and  ques- 
tionable). 

Matt.  X.  4,  and  Mark  iii.  18, '  Simon  the  Canaanite,'  instead  of '  Simon  of 
Ca7ia'  (the  village  in  Galilee,  which,  however,  would  require  Kavirrjc;  rather 
than  KavaviTtjg),  or,  better,  '  the  Zealot'  (=Zj;X(ur//c),  compare  Luke  A'i.  15 ; 
Acts  i.  13;  Numb.  xxv.  11.  The  American  Bible  Society's  edition  of  1852 
had  substituted  Cananite,  which  was  afterward  changed  back  to  Canaanite. 

Matt.  xiv.  8, '  And  she  being  before  ■instructed  (from  the  Vulgate  proemo- 
nita)  of  her  mother,'  instead  of  ^instigated  (or  led  on,  induced,  aufgestachelt, 
angestiftet,  irpojiijiaaQtlaa)  by  her  mother.' 

JLatt.  xxviii.  19,  '  Baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,'  etc.,  instead 
of  '■into  the  name'  (t  Iq  to  ovo^ia,  not  tv  T<p  ovvfiari),  i.  e.  into  the  covenant 
relationship  and  communion  with  the  triune  God.  So  also  1  Cor.  i.  13,' 
'baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul,'  for  '■into'  (elg  to  vpofia  UavXov);  Acts  viii. 

ital  letters,  words  in  italics,  punctuation,  and  headings  of  columns  and  chap- 
ters, but  the  American  Bible  Society  was  induced  by^  a  majority  of  its  man- 
agers to  cancel  the  revised  edition  thus  prepared  (1852),  on  the  ground  of 
alleged  want  of  constitutional  authority,  and  popular  dissatisfaction  with  a 
number  of  the  changes  made,  especially  in  the  headings  of  chapters  (as  sub- 
stituting Messiah  and  Sion,  in  the  0.  T.,  for  Christ  and  Church).  Some  fruits 
of  their  labor,  however,  remain,  and  many  inconsistencies  in  the  spelling  of 
proper  names,  in  the  use  of  the  vocative  0  and  the  optative  oh,  and  of  the  in- 
definite article  (now  a  house,  a  hill,  a  holy,  now  an  house,  etc.),  are  rectified 
in  the  editions  of  the  American  Bible  Society  since  1860.  See  the  Rcjiort 
of  the  Committee  on  Versions,  appointed  in  1858. 


xxxii  INTRODUCTIOX. 

15  ;  xix.  5.  The  folse  rendering  of  the  English  and  other  versions  arises  from 
the  Vulgate  (in  nomine;  Tertullian  had  it  correctly  in  7io7nen);  but  in  other 
passages  on  baptism  the  English  Version  renders  the  preposition  tig  correctly, 
viz.  Eom.  vi.  3,  4  ;  1  Cor.  x.  2  ;  xii.  13 ;  Gal.  iii.  27;  Acts  xix.  3.* 

Luke  xxiii.  1 5, '  nothing  worthy  of  death  is  done  unto  him'  (tcrrlv  imrpay- 
fi'tvov  avTili),  for  '  hath  been  done  by  him'  (Jesus). 

John  viii.  58, ' Before  Abraham  was,  I  am,'  instead  of '  was  born,''  or '  made,' 
or  '  became.'  There  is  an  important  distinction  between  yivia^ai,  which  sig- 
nifies temporal  or  created  existence,  beginning  in  time  and  presupposing  pre- 
vious non-existence,  and  tlvai,  which  expresses  here,  in  the  present  tense,  the 
eternal,  uncreated  existence  of  the  Divine  Logos.  The  same  distinction  is 
observed  in  the  prologue  of  John,  where  iiv  is  applied  to  the  Logos,  ver.  1 , 
iykvtro  to  the  genesis  of  the  world,  ver.  3,  the  birth  of  John  the  Baptist,  ver. 
6,  and  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos,  ver.  H.t 

John  X.  1 G, '  one  ybW  (following  the  ovile  of  the  Vulgate,  Avhich  might  fa- 
vor a  narrow  ecclesiasticism)  and  one  shepherd,'  instead  of '  there  will  be  one 
flock  (^/.tia  TToiiivi],  not  avXif ;  comp.  ver.  IC),  one  shepherd.'  (Tyndale  was 
con-ect  here.) J 

John  xiii.  2, '  Supper  being  ended'  (which  is  inconsistent  with  ver.  12  and 
ver.  2G,  where  the  meal  is  still  going  on),  for  '  the  meal  (ciIttvov  was  the  prin- 
cipal meal  of  the  ancients,  and  corresponds  to  our  late  dinner)  being  about  to 
begin,'  or  ''having  begun'  (yivofisvov,  al.  yevo]xivov). 

John  xiv.  18,  ''comfortless,'  for  ''orphans'  (opipavot). 

John  xvi.  8,  ^reprove,'  for  ^ convince' (tXiyx^v,  which  implies  both  a  convin- 
cing unto  salvation  and  a  convicting  unto  condemnation. 

Acts  ii.  47,  'such  as  should  be  saved,'  instead  of  '  ivere  being  saved,'  or 
'were  in  the  way  of  salvation'  (rovg  (Tw^O|U8vo«;e,  which  signifies  a  progressive 
condition,  not  a  final  determination). 

Acts  xii.  4,  ^Easter'  (a  heathen  or  Christian  festival),  for  the  Jewish  ^Pass- 
over' (jvaaxa'). 

Acts  xvii.  22, '  in  all  things  ye  are  too  superstitious,'  instead  of '  very  religious' 
(SeimdaifiovKTTipovg  ;  Beza  correctly  :  religiosiores,  De  Wette  :  sehr  gottes- 
fiirchtig).  The  A.  V.  makes  Paul  commence  his  address  to  the  Athenians, 
contrary  to  his  custom,  with  a  reproach  or  an  insult,  while,  in  fact,  he  compli- 
ments them  for  their  religiousness,  with  a  delicate  hint  of  their  excess  in  a 
wrong  direction,  and  makes  this  the  starting-point  for  preaching  to  them  the 
^unknown  God,'  whom  '  they  worshipped'  (not  '  ignorantli/,'  but)  ^unknowing- 
ly' or  ' ■unknowing'  (ayvooT/iTfc,  with  evident  allusion  to  uyvwan^  Be<i)). 

Eom.  i.  20,  '  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead,'  for  godhood,  divinity,  divine 
majesty  (Goltllchkeit,  ^tiorijc,  not  ^tortjg). 

Rom.  iii.  25,  'for  the  remission  of  sins,' instead  of  *■  prcetermission,'  or,  as 

*  See  Alford,  in  loc,  and  m}'  annotations  in  Lange  on  Matthew,  p.  558. 

t  Comp.  my  annotations  in  Lange  on  John,  p.  54,  G4,  79,  298. 

X  Alford,  in  loc. :  '  The  /ii«  Trolfivrj  is  remarkable — not  fxla  avXi),  as  charac- 
teristically but  erroneously  rendered  in  the  English  Version :  not  onefold,  but 
one  flock;  no  one  exclusive  inclosure  of  an  outward  Church,  but  one  flock, 
all  knowing  the  one  Shepherd,  and  known  of  him. '  Comp.  my  remarks  in 
Lange  on  John,  p.  323. 


INTRODUCTIOJSr. 


XXXlll 


the  margin  of  the  A.  V.  has  it, '  the  passinrj  over  (-TrdpEmg,  not  to  be  confound- 
ed with  uipeoiQ). 

Rom.  xiii.  2,  and  1  Cor.  xi.  29,  'damnation''  (altogether  too  strong),  instead 
oi' judgment''  (Kpifia,  not  KaTaKpi/ua). 

1  Thess.  V.  22,  'abstain  from  all  appearance  of  evil'  (so  also  Luther,  Calvin, 
Grotius,  Wordsworth,  but  contrary  to  the  meaning  of  dSoe),  instead  of  '  ev- 
ery yb7-»j,'  or  'all  kind  of  evil'  (correct  in  the  Geneva  Version). 

2  Thess.  ii.  7,  'the  mystery  of  iniquity,'  for  lawlessness'  (/xvcrrnpiov  r*7c 
avo/iiac;^. 

1  Tim.  vi.  5, '  gain  is  godliness,'  instead  of '  godliness  is  gain'  (as  Coverdale 
renders  Tropicr^iov  tlvai  Tt)v  tvai(3uav ;  comp.  for  a  similar  position  of  the  pred- 
icate without  the  article  John  i.  1,  S'toc  >>  6  Xoyoe,  and  iv.  24,  iTvtvjxa  6  ^coc). 

1  John  v.  15,  'He  hear  us'  (which  may  be  a  misprint,  or  an  old  use  of  the 
subjunctive),  for  '  heareth'  {aKovii). 

Heb.  ii.  16,  'He  tooJc  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels ;  but  he  took  on  him 
the  seed  of  Abraham,'  a  double  error,  instead  of  'lie  helpeth,  doth  help,' or 
'rescue,  deliver,  lay  hold  upon'  (which  is  the  true  meaning  of  imXa/ifSapETai, 
now  generally  adopted  in  place  of  the  older  interpretation).* 

Heb.  xi.  13,  '■embraced  them'  (the  promises),  for  'greeted'  or  'hailed'  them 
from  afar  (/z/)  Xa^ovriq  tuq  'tizayytkiaQ,  aWa  TrupfxxiSrev  avrdg  idovTiQ,  Kal 
dairacrdjievoi,  and  thus  dying  Kara  Triariv,  to  embrace  and  enjoy  the  prom- 
ises hereafter). 

The  frequent  word  Saifioviov,  a  demon  or  evil  spirit,  is  usually  rendered 
devil  (Matt.  vii.  22 ;  ix.  33, 34 ;  x.  8 ;  xii.  24,  and  often),  and  Baiixovtov  t'xaj/,  to 
have  a  devil,  and  thus  the  distinction  between  the  Prince  of  darkness  (6  Sid(3o- 
'XoQ,  6  ^aravug)  and  his  subordinate  servants  is  obliterated.  The  phrase  dai- 
fioviov  ix^iv  refers  to  the  popular  belief  in  demoniacal  possessions,  and  is  ma- 
lignantly applied  to  Christ,  John  viii.  48,  49  ;  x.  20,  21 ;  but  in  the  passage 
John  vii.  20  it  seems  used  of  Christ,  and  Matt.  xi.  1 8  of  John  the  Baptist, 
compassionately  in  the  milder  sense,  'he  has  a  spirit  of  melancholy,  he  la- 
bors under  a  hallucination.' 

'AvaK\'ivo}.iai  and  dvaKUfxai,  to  recline,  at  table  (on  a  couch  or  triclinium, 
according  to  the  well-known  Oriental  custom,  are  falsely  rendered  to  sit  or 
sit  down  (Matt.  viii.  11 ;  ix.  10 ;  Mark  xiv.  18  ;  Luke  vii.  36  ;  xiii.  29,  etc.). 

The  coins,  weights,  and  measures  are  very  loosely  translated,  as  Spaxp] 
(an  Attic  silver  coin  equal  to  the  Roman  denarius,  worth  about  16  American 
cents)  by  'piece'  of  silver,  ciSpaxi^ov  (a  double  drachm  or  half  shekel  of  the 
Jews)  by  tribute-money,  tribute  (Matt.  xvii.  24),  and  <j-ar))p  (double  the  for- 
mer, or  equivalent  to  a  Jewish  shekel)  by  '  a  piece  of  money'  (Matt.  xvii.  27) ; 
but  more  frequently  they  are  mistranslated.  So  Stjvdpiov  (denarius),  a  Ro- 
man silver  coin  equivalent  to  the  Attic  drachma,  used  in  the  Gospels  almost 
always  for  a  large  sum  (Matt.  xx.  2,  9, 10, 13  ;  xxii.  19;  Mark  vi.  37;  xiv. 
5;  Luke  vii.  41 ;  John  vi.  7;  xii.  5  ;  Rev.  vi.  6),  is  translated  penny,  when 
franc  or  shilling  would  come  much  nearer  its  absolute,  and  fiills  for  short  of 
its  relative,  value  at  the  time  of  Christ.  A  'penny'  would  indeed  be  miserable 
wages  for  a  day's  labor  (Matt.  xx.  2),  and  '  three  hundred /?ence'  a  poor  sum 

*  See  notes  of  Moll  and  Kendrick  in  Lange  on  Hebrews,  Am.  ed.  pp.  GO,  69. 

c 


xxxiv  INTROBUCTIOK 

for  the  precious  ointment  of  Mary,  in  her  ever-memorahle  deed  of  love  (John 
xii.  5).  Denary  would  I'equire  a  marginal  note  ;  silverling  (or  silver-piece), 
though  rather  indefinite,  might  be  used,  as  it  is  found  in  the  A.V.  hi  Isa.  vii. 
23.* 

'Aaaapiov,  a  penny  (its  exact  value  is  a  cent  and  a  half),  and  Kocpavrrjc 
(quadrans),  fur  thill  fj  (^Heller),  are  both  translated  alike,  although  the  latter  is 
only  one  fourth  part  of  the  former.  ^Measure'  is  used  for  xoli't^  (about  a 
quart),  auTov,  a  satum  or  seah,  jidroc,  the  bath  or  ephah,  and  Kopoc,  a  cor  or 
homer  (equal  to  15  bushels  English),  though  the  cdrov  is  one  third  of  the 
ftdroQ,  and  ftdrog  one  tenth  of  the  Kopog. 

3.  Tnaccuracies. 
To  rectify  inexact  and  imperfect  renderings,  which  ob- 
scure, or  weaken,  or  modify  the  sense  intended  by  the  sa- 
cred WTiter. 

These  cases  are  far  more  numerous  than  positive  errors,  though  often 
scarcely  less  injurious.     They  may  be  classified  under  the  following  heads: 

(a.)  Omission  of  the  article. 

Matt.  iv.  5, '  a  pinnacle,'  for  ^the  pinnacle  (rb  vripvytov)  of  the  Temple.' 

Matt.  v.  1,  and  other  places,  'o  mountain,' instead  of  ^  the  mountain'  {to 
opog). 

Matt.  xii.  41, '  rise  up  in  judgment,'  for  '  in  the  j.'(comp.  ver.  42,  where  the 
article  is  correctly  retained  in  the  A.  V.). 

Matt.  xxiv.  12, '  the  love  of  many  shall  wax  (grow)  cold,'  instead  of  '  the 
love  of  the  many'  {tHov  ttoWwv),  i.  e.  the  vast  majority  of  the  disciples. 

John  vi.  4,  '  tlie  Passover,  a  feast  of  the  Jews,'  instead  of '  the  (great)  feast' 
(>)  loprri  Twv  'lovSaiiov). 

John  xii.  13,  'They  took  branches  of  palm-trees,' where  the  original  reads 
'  the  branches  of  the  palm-trees'  (of  the  Mount  of  Olives). 

Rom.  V.  15,  17,  18,  19,  'one'  and  'many'  (opposed  to  few),  for  'the  one,'  t» 
tig  (i.  e.  Adam  the  one  transgressor  on  one  hand,  and  Christ  the  one  restorer 
on  the  other),  and  '  the  many,'  oi  ttoXXoi  (i.  e.  the  mass,  the  whole  race,  Trdvng 
dv^p<ti7roi,\er.  12).  The  omission  of  the  article  in  this  important  passage 
weakens  the  antithesis  and  obscures  the  idea  of  the  sufficiency  and  universal 
intent  of  Christ's  redemption. 

Rom.  V.  9,  'saved  from  wrath,'  instead  of  ^the  wrath'  to  come  (uTrb  rijg 
opyrig).     Correct  in  1  Thess.  ii.  lt>. 

1  Cor.  ix.  5,  'as  well  as  other  apostles,'  instead  of  ^the  other  apostles'  (ol 
XoiTTOi  aTTOffroXoi). 

Col.  i.  19,  'all  fulness,'  instead  of '  the  whole  fulness'  {ttup  to  TrXiipMjxa),  i.  e. 
the  plenitude  or  totality  of  divine  powers. 

2  Thess.  ii.  3,  'except  a  falling  away,'  for  ^the  falling  away,'  i.  e.  the  great 
apostasy  (/)  dTroa-aaia). 

1  Tim.  vi.  12,  13,  'a  good  profession,'  for  ^the  good  profession.' 

2  Tim.  iv.  7,  8, '  fought  a  good  fight  ....  my  course  ....  a  crown  of 

*  See  my  annotation  to  Lange  on  Matthew,  p.  332,  textual  note  '. 


INTRODUCTION. 


XXXV 


righteousness,' for '<Ae  good  fight i^e  course <//e  crown  of 

righteousness. ' 

Heb.  xi.  10,  'he  looked  for  a  city  which  liath  foundations,'  instead  of  'he 
was  looking  {i^ickxtTo,  imperf.)  for  the  (heavenly)  city  which  has  the  founda- 
tions' (ttjv  rove  BfSfiEXiovQ  txovaav  ttoXiv);  comp.  xii.  22;  Rev.  xxi.  14,19,30. 

Rev.  vii.  14,  'they  which  come  out  of  great  tribulation,'  for  Uhe  great  trib- 
ulation'(k  rrjc  ^Xiiptug  Ti)g  [ieydXrit:) ;  comp.  Matt.  xxiv.  22,29;  Dan.  xii.  1. 

The  article  is  often  neglected  before  vufxoe  in  the  Romans  and  Galatians, 
where  it  designates  the  written  Mosaic  law,  in  distinction  from  vofxoc,  the  un- 
written, abstract,  and  universal  law ;  and  in  the  Gospels  before  Christ,  6  Xpiarog^ 
the  long-expected  Messiah  of  the  Jews  (e.  g.  Matt.  ii.  4;  xi.  2;  xvi.  16;  xxiv. 
5  ;  Luke  xxiii.  35,  39). 

Although  the  English  idiom  does  not  always  admit  the  article  Avhere  it  is 
in  the  Greek,  yet  it  is  generally  safe  to  render  it  whenever  it  is  emphatic,  or 
when  it  appears  after  a  preposition,  though  there  are  exceptions,  e.  g.  Matt. 
iii.  13  (arrb  rfje  FaXiXaiaQ  tTri  rbv  'lop5civr]v  vpog  rbv  'l(x)dvi't]v').  King 
James's  revisers  seem  to  have  followed  too  often  the  Latin  Version,  where 
the  article  disappears. 

(6.)  Insertion  of  the  definite  article  where  there  is  none  in  the 
Greek. 

Matt,  xxvii.  54,  'the  Son  of  God,'  for  'a  Son  of  God'  (comp.  the  parallel 
passage,  Luke  xxiii.  47,  'a  righteous  man'). 

John  iv.  27,  'with  the  woman,'  as  if  the  impropriety  was  in  Christ's  speak- 
ing with  this  particular  woman  of  Samaria,  while  the  disciples,  without  know- 
ing her  character,  took  offense  at  his  talking  with  a  woman  (furd  yvvaiKog), 
i.  e.  with  any  woman,  contraiy  to  the  rabbinical  rule. 

Acts  xxvi.  2,  'accused  of  the  Jews'  (as  if  all  were  included). 

Rom.  ii.  14, '  When  the  Gentiles  which  have  not  the  law  observe  by  nature,' 
etc.,  instead  of '  When  Gentiles ;'  tSrvr],  i.  e.  some,  not  all. 

1  Thess.  iv.  17,  'caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  clouds,'  instead  of  'in 
clouds'  (er/  vt^tXate). 

1  Tim.  vi.  10,  '  the  love  of  money  is  the  root  of  all  evil ;'  as  if  it  was  the  only 
one,  while  the  apostle  calls  it  simply  '  a  root'  (piZa)  among  other  fruitful  roots, 
as  pride,  hatred,  idolatry,  intemperance,  from  which  every  form  of  moral  evil 
may  spring. 

(c.)  Neglect  of  prepositions. 

The  prepositions  tv  (in,  signifying  rest)  and  elg  (into,  signifying  motion), 
the  Sid  with  the  genitive  (instrumental,  through,  by  means  of,  etc.)  and  iid 
with  the  accusative  (indicating  the  moving  cause,  because  of,  on  account  oj"), 
tK  (=ex,  out  df,from,  origin,  motion  out  of),  arro  (=ab,from,  remoter  than 
tK)  and  vTTo  with  genitive  (from  under,  by),  are  very  often  confounded,  to  the 
serious  injury  of  the  sense. 

We  have  already  mentioned,  under  a  pre\'ious  head,  the  exchange  of  ti'e  for 
iv  in  the  baptismal  formula,  which  amounts  to  a  mistranslation. 

Luke  xxiii.  42,  the  Greek  requires  'comest  in  thy  kingdom'  ('regno  jam 
acquisito',  as  Maldonatus  observes;  comp.  Matt.  xxv.  31 :  'When  the  Son 
of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,'  etc.),  instead  of  'into  thy  kingdom.' 


XXX  vi  IXTBODUCTIOX. 

Rom.  xi.  2,  tv  'HXiif,  '■in  (the  histoiy  of)  Elijah,'  not  'o/Elias.' 

Phil.  ii.  10,  kv  r<^  ovojiaTi  'Iri<Tov,  ^in  the  name  of  Jesus,'  instead  of  'ai  the 
name. ' 

In  2  Pet.  i.  5-7  the  omission  of  the  preposition  (iv  ry  iriaTti — iv  ry  yvuxrei, 
K.r.X.)  tends  to  turn  the  organic  development  of  the  Christian  graces  and 
their  causal  dependence  one  upon  another  into  a  mechanical  accumulation. 

In  1  Pet.  ii.  12  and  iii.  10  we  have  '  whereas,'  instead  of  ^ivherein  (tv  <;j). 

'Eu  is  often  wrongly  translated  bi/  or  throuyh,  where  it  signifies  the  life-ele- 
ment, as  in  the  important  Pauline  phrases  'in  Christ, "t«  the  Lord," in  the 
Spirit, 'e.  g.  Rom.  vi.  11 ;  xiv.  14  ;  xv.  16  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  3,  9  H  while  Rom.  viii. 
],  2  ;  ix.  1 ;  xii.  5  ;  xiv.  17  ;  x\-i.  2,  3,  7,  10,  11,  12,  13  ;  1  Cor.  i.  2,  etc.,  it  is 
correctly  rendered  in. 

(d.)  Neglect  of  particles. 

Every  careful  reader  of  the  Greek  Testament,  and  of  such  commentators  as 
Meyer,  Fritzsche,  Ellicott,  knows  how  much  the  full  force  of  Paul's  argument 
depends  upon  a  correct  understanding  and  translation  of  the  logical  and  ar- 
gumentative particles,  especially  the  illative  dpa,  apayt,  dpa  ovv,  the  simpler 
ovv  (most  frequent  in  John),  the  adversative  dXAa,  etc.  It  is  quite  impossi- 
ble, however,  in  the  English  language,  to  do  full  justice  to  the  wealth  of  par- 
ticles in  which  the  Greek  excels. 

Examples:  Gal.  v.  11,  '■then  after  all'  (dpa),  for  '■then;'  vi.  10,^ Accord- 
ingly then,  as  we  have  opportunity'  (dpa  ovv),  for  '■therefore,'  etc. ;  iii.  5, '  He 
then  who  is  bestowing'  (ovv,  resumptive),  for  '■therefore;'  so  John  xi.  6  ;  and 
John  vi.  60,  'now  many  of  his  disciples'  (ovv,  continuative),  for  'many  there- 
fore,' etc. ;  so  xi.  33  ;  xii.  9  ;  Rom.  vii.  7,  '■but  I  had  not  known  sin'  (aXXd), 
for  '■nay,'  etc. ;  Gal.  iii.  22,  ^but,  on  the  contrary'  (dWd),  for  '■but;'  Gal.  v. 
16,  '■now  I  say'  (Sk),  for  'This  I  say  then;'  1  Tim.  i.  8,  '■now  we  know'  (Si), 
for  '■but;'  Gal.  iii.  17,  'this,  however,  I  say,'  (c't),  for  ^ and.' 

(e.)  Non-observance  of  tenses,  moods,  and  toices. 

Aorists  ai'e  very  often  confounded  with  perfects,  perfects  with  aorists ;  im- 
perfects are  rendered  as  aorists  and  perfects ;  the  changes  of  moods  and 
voices  ai-e  less  frequent.     A  few  examples  must  suffice. 

The  imperfect  should  be  represented,  Luke  i.  59, '  they  were  calling'  (Ud- 
\ovv),  for  ^called;'  Luke  v.  6,  'their  net  was  breaking,'  or  ^ began  to  break' 
(5iippr]yvvTo),  for  ^ brake;'  Luke  xiv.  7,  ^were  choosing  out'  (t^iXiyovro),  for 
'■chose  out;'  Acts  iii.  1,  ^were  going  up'  (dvil3aivov),  for  '■went  up ;'  Mark  ii. 
18,  *■  were  fasting'  (>iaav  vijartvovrtg),  for  'used  to  fast ;'  Gal.  i.  13,  'was  de- 
stroying,' or  'wasting'  (t7rup9ovv),  for  'wasted;'  and  ver.  23,  'which  once  he 
was  destroying'  (inopOei),  for  'destroyed.' 

The  aorist  should  be  rendered.  Matt,  xxvii.  4,  ijiiaprov  ■rrapadovQ  al/ia  dOw- 
ov, '  I  sinned  in  betraying  innocent  blood'  (which  is  in  better  keeping  with  the 
concise  earnestness  of  the  Greek  and  the  desperate  state  of  Judas  than  '  I 
have  sinned  in  that  I  have  betrayed  the  innocent  blood')  ;  Luke  i.  19,  dTnord- 
\i]v, '  I  ivas  sent,'  instead  of  'I  am  sent'  (dTriaToXfiai)  ;  Mark  xvi.  2,  dvarii- 
XavTog  roil  7'i\iov,  'when  the  sun  was  risen,'  instead  of  'at  the  rising  of  the 
sun;'  Rom.  v.  12,  'sinned'  (i'lfiaprov,' ornnes ])eccarunt peccante  Adamo,'  Ben- 
gel),  for  'have  sinned.' 


INTRODUCTION.  XXXvii 

The  present  should  be  restored  in  Heb.  ii.  16,  iin\aiif5aviTai, '  he  delivereth 
not  angels,  but  he  delivereth  the  seed  of  Abraham,'  instead  of  '  he  took  not  on 
him  the  nature  of  angels,  but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham.' 

The  perfect  should  be  given  in  Luke  xiii.  2, '  they  have  suffered^  (in  the 
past,  viiTovQaaiv')  such  things,  for  '  they  suffered.' 

The  passive  should  be  restored,  2  Cor.  v.  10,  'we  must  all  he  made  mani- 
fest ((pavEpwOrjfai,  exhibited  as  we  are)  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ,' 
instead  of  ''appear.^ 

(y.)  Non-observance  of  the  genitive,  especiallt  the  genitive  of 

QUALITY,    WHICH    IS    OFTEN    WEAKENED    BY    THE    SUBSTITUTION    OF    AN    AD- 
JECTIVE. 

Rom.  viii.  G,  to  (ppovijjxa  tijq  aapKog,^  the  mind  of  the  flesh,' to  (ppovrjfia  rov 
TTvtviiaToc, '  the  mind  of  the  Spirit' — stronger  than  '  to  be  carnally  minded,' 
'  to  be  spiritually  minded.' 

Rom.  viii.  21,  ttjv  tXtv9(piav  rrJQ  cv^rjQ  ruiv  rtKvojv  rov  Sttov,  'the  liberty 
of  the  glory  of  the  children  of  God,'  for  '  the  glorious  liberty.' 

Phil.  iii.  21,  to  auifia  rj}f  TaTTUvdjcrtwc  ii^Lwv, '  the  body  of  our  humiliation,' 
and  TO  aCjfia  tyiq  So^ijg  av-ov,  'the  body  of  his  glory,'  are  weakened  by  the 
translation  '  our  vile  body'  and  '  his  glorious  body. ' 

1  Tim.  i.  11,  ro  tvayyiXiov  ti'iq  So^rjc,  'the  gospel  of  the  gloi'y,'  instead  of 
'  the  glorious  gospel. ' 

(g.)  Inadequate  and  insufficient  renderings  of  avords  and  phrases. 

Matt.\i.2, 6,  air  ('xovm  should  be  rendered  'they  have  oZ/,'  or  'have  in  full,' 
{haben  dahin),  i.  e.  they  can  expect  no  more.  The  A.V.  treats  it  like  the 
simple  txovm. 

Matt.  xxi.  40,  kukovs  KaKiog  J(^—pessimos  pessirne)  a7ro\taEi,is  a  paronoma- 
sia of  the  purest  Greek,  bringing  out  the  agreement  of  character  Avith  the 
punishment,  and  may  be  reproduced  in  English  by  '  he  will  miserably  destroy 
those  miserable  men,'  or  '  he  will  ivretchedly  destroy  those  wretches'  (as  in 
German  by  Elenden  elendiglich,  or  schlimm  and  Schlimmen,  or  iibel  and  Uebel- 
thater),httt  the  A.V.  destroys  it  by  '  miserably — those  ivicked  men.' 

Matt,  xxvii.  32,  '  him  (Simon  of  Cyrene)  they  compelled  (for  impressed')  to 
bear  his  cross,'  which  makes  the  act  appear  as  an  arbitrary  assumption  of 
power,  while  dyyapd'Eiv  is  the  technical  term  for  pressing  men  or  horses  into 
public  service  by  authority. 

Matt,  xxvii.  44,  'Cast  the  same  in  his  teeth,'  for  'reproached  him  in  like 
manner'  (jb  avrb  ....  ojvsiSiZov  avT(^). 

Matt,  xxvii.  49,  'Let  be'  (a  rebuke),  for  the  hortatory  '  Come,  let  us  see,'  or 
simply  'Lei  us  see.'  'A^te  idwfiiv  is  a  shortened  popular  form  of  expression 
for  d(peQ  'ivii  icwjuev,  like  dftc  iKJSdXit}  in  Matt.  vii.  4  and  Luke  vi.  42.  (See 
Buttmann's  Gram.  d.  N.  T.  Sprache,  p.  181  seq.,  and  Moulton's  note  to  his 
excellent  translation  of  Winer,  p.  356,  note  ^)  The  elliptical  or  concise  form 
of  expression  is  like  BtXtig  ditiofxtv ;  tL  ^kXtTt  Troirjau) ;  and  the  familiar  omis- 
sion of  ut  in  Latin  after  volo,  sino,  etc. 

Luke  ii.  49, 'about  my  Father's  business;'  better,  'in  my  Father's  house,' 
i.  e.  the  temple. 

John  i.  Ii,'  dwelled  among  us,'  where  tabernacled,  or  pitched  his  tent  (Mey- 


XXX  V  iii  I^TR  OD  UCTIOK 

er  and  Ewald,  zeltele ;  Godet,  a  dresse  sa  tente^,  would  better  render  the  ob- 
vious allusion  of  the  verb  icKijvwai  to  the  OKtjv)],  or  Shekinah  (from  "jSTiJ),  and 
its  typical  appearance  in  the  tabernacle  and  the  temple  of  old,  now  actualized 
in  the  essential  and  permanent  indwelling  of  the  Divine  Su^a  in  the  person 
of  the  incarnate  Logos.     Comp.  Apoc.  vii.  15  ;  xxi.  3.* 

John  i.  43  (in  the  English  Bible,  ver.  44  in  the  Greek), '  he  would  go,'  for 
'  intended  to  go'  (r'jOsXrjatv).  The  force  of  BiXtiv  is  very  often  neglected. 
See  Diet. 

Rom.  V,  \%^ 'righteousness,^  for  ^righteous  act,'  SucaiMfia  (not  SiKaioavptj). 
In  the  same  chapter,  ver.  16,  the  word  is  translated  ^justification'  (which 
would  I'equire  ciKaiuimg),  while  it  means  either  righteous  act,  as  in  ver.  18,  or 
righteous  sentence  {Rechtsspruch).f 

Rom.  vii.  23,  ^another  law,'  for  a  ^different  law'  ('ircpor,  not  dWog^,  and 
Gal.  i.  G,  ^another  gospel,'  for  a  ''different  gospel.'  In  both  cases  trepog  {di- 
versus)  is  used,  which  means  different  in  kind,  while  dWog  (alius)  means  an- 
other of  the  same  kind. 

1  Cor.  xiii.  1,  2,  3, 4,  8, 13,  'charity  (from  ' caritas'),  v,h[ch  is  now  used  in  a 
restricted  sense,  for  the  more  comprehensive  love  (ayoTr/j)  to  God  and  man. 

Gal.  i.  G, '  Ye  are  so  soon  removed  from  him  that  called  you  into  the  grace 
of  Christ  unto  another  gospel,'  instead  of  'so  soon  changing  over  (fXErariOt- 
<t9(,  middle,  not  passive)  from  him  that  called  you  in  (or  bi/,  iv,  not  tie)  the 
grace  of  Christ,  unto  a  different  gospel.' 

Gal.  i.  14, 'And  profited  in  the  Jews'  religion  above  many  my  equals ;'  bet- 
ter,'And  surpassed  in  Judaism  many  of  my  age'  {avvi]\iKiwTaQ).  Verse  15, 
'  who  separated  me,'  for  '  set  me  apart.' 

Gal.  i.  18,'  to  see  Peter,'  for  'to  make  the  acquaintance'  (laToprjaat,  which  is 
more  than  ISetv)  of  Cephas'  (the  correct  reading,  as  in  ii.  9, 1 1, 14). 

Gal.  ii.  6,'  those  who  seemed  to  be  somewhat'  (the  pillar  apostles),  for  '  who 
were  deemed  somewhat,'  or  'who  are  of  reputation.' 

Gal.  ii.  11 , '  he  was  to  be  blamed'  (from  the  reprehensihilis  of  the  Vulgate), 
for  'was  condemned'  {Kareyvwcfuivog  f/v). 

Eph.  iv.  3, '  endeavoring'  (which,  as  now  used,  implies  the  possibility  or  prob- 
ability of  fiiilure)  '  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit,'  etc.,  instead  of  the  stron- 
ger 'giving  all  diligence,'  '  striving  earnestly'  ((nrovSd^ovrtg), 

Col.  i.  15,  TTpMToroKog  Trdffrjg  Kriaeujg  should  be  rendered  'begotten  before 
every  creature,'  or  'before  the  whole  creation,' which  is  required  by  the  con- 
text ;  for  Christ  is  said  to  be  before  all  things,  and  all  things  were  made  by 
him  (ver.  1 6).  The  A.  V. , '  the  first-born  of  every  creature, '  mistakes  the  gen- 
itive of  comparison,  or  of  the  point  of  view  (the  genitive  depends  on  Trpwrog, 
as  TTpiLrog  fiov,  John  i.  15,  30)  for  a  partitive  genitive,  and  might  furnish  an 
argument  to  Arianism,  which  regards  Christ  as  the  first  creature  (^Kria/xa). 
But  there  is  an  important  distinction  between  TrpixtTOTOKog^TrpuiToyovog,  and 
irpioroKTicTOg,  or  irpdJTOTrKaarog.X 

The  translation  '  God  forbid,'  for  fii)  ykvoiro  (Rom.  iii.  4,  G),  and  '  1  would 

*  See  Lange  on  John,  p.  71,  textual  note  ',  and  73. 

t  Comp.  on  this  difficult  word,  Rothe  on  Romans  v.  12-21,  and  my  edition 
of  Lange  on  Romans,  p.  1 84  seq. 

t  See  the  remarks  of  Meyer,  Ellicott,  and  Braune — Riddle,  in  loc. 


INTRODUCTIOK 


XXXIX 


to  God,'  for  o(piKov  (I  Cor.  iv.  8),  though  strong  and  expressive  (too  much 
so),  sounds  profane  to  a  modern  ear,  and  ought  to  be  changed. 

4.  Inconsistencies. 
To  introduce  consistency  and  uniformity  in  the  trans- 
lation of  words  and  phrases. 

The  defects  under  this  head  are  closely  allied  to  those  under  the  preceding 
head,  and  are  discussed  with  much  care  by  Prof  Lightfoot.*  Wherever  the 
variation  does  not  affect  the  sense  or  weaken  the  emphasis,  we  would  allow 
considerable  freedom  and  retain  the  traditional  rendering.  A  mechanical 
uniformity  would  often  mar  the  beauty  or  the  rhythmical  flow  of  diction,  and 
do  great  injustice  to  the  genius  of  the  English  language  and  its  wealth  in 
bilingual  duplicates,  which  is  one  of  its  characteristic  advantages  and  ele- 
ments of  power.!  But  the  A.V.  goes  to  an  extreme  in  two  opposite  directions, 

*  Dr.  Lightfoot  is  no  doubt  right  in  principle,  notwithstanding  the  strict- 
ures of  Mr.  Erie  in  ^T/ie  Guardian  for  September  20, 1871,  and  January  10, 
1872,  and  of  an  able  reviewer  in  ^T/ie  London  Quart.  Review''  for  July,  1872. 
The  application  of  the  principle  is  often  a  matter  of  taste  and  expediency. 

t  As  ''act  and  deed,'  ^head  and  chief,'  '■might  and  power,'  ^justice  and 
righteousness,'  ^ royal  and  kingly,'  ''sacerdotal  and  priestly,'  ''mature  and 
ripe,'  ' omnipotent  audi  almighty,'  ^timely  and  early,'  ^desire  and  ivish,'  ^ sanc- 
tij'y  and  hallotv,'  ^conceal  and  hide,'  ^constitute  and  make,'  ^baptize  (Greek, 
Latin)  and  christen  (Greek,  Saxon).  There  is,  however,  mostly  a  shade  of 
difference  between  the  Saxon  and  the  corresponding  Norman-Latin  terms,  as 
between  ''love,'  the  affection  of  the  heart  toward  God  and  man,  and  'charity,' 
love  in  active  exercise  toward  our  neighbor;  'freedom,'  the  inherent  power, 
and  'liberty,'  in  opposition  to  previous  servitude  or  restraint;  'readable, 
which  refers  to  the  matter,  and  '  legible,'  which  refers  to  the  form  or  hand- 
writing; between  'ox,'  'calf  'sheep,'  'c?eer,' which  signify  the  animals  in 
their  natural  state,  and  'beef  'veal,'  'mutton,'  'renison,' which  are  used  of 
the  meat  of  these  animals  as  prepared  for  the  table  of  the  Norman  lord. 
The  framers  of  the  original  portions  of  the  Anglican  Common  Prayer-book, 
probably  from  a  desire  to  I'each  the  hearts  of  fjl  classes  of  the  people  at  a 
time  when  the  condition  of  the  language  was  not  yet  perfectly  settled,  made 
very  frequent  use  of  bilingual  duplicates,  as  acknowledge  and  confess,  dis- 
semble and  cloak,  humble  and  lowly,  goodness  and  mercy,  assemble  and  meet 
together,  requisite  and  necessary,  pray  and  beseech,  remission  and  forgiveness, 
loving  and  amiable.  The  Saxon  is  the  democratic,  the  Norman  the  aristo- 
cratic element  in  the  English  language ;  the  former  gives  it  strength,  the 
latter  dignity  ;  the  Saxon  supplies  the  vocabulary  of  common,  every-day  life, 
the  Norman  the  vocabulary  of  rank  and  fashion  ;  the  one  we  need  at  home, 
the  other  in  the  courts  of  law,  on  the  chase,  and  in  polished  society.  The 
Saxon  is  the  language  in  which  we  live  and  die,  and  express  our  deepest 
thoughts  and  feelings.  It  therefore  very  properly  predominates  in  the  Prot- 
estant versions  of  the  English  Bible  since  Tyndale,  who  excelled  in  the 
purest  and  most  vigorous  Saxon.  What  can  be  finer  than  such  truly  Saxon 
passages  as  ' My  heart  is  smitten  and  withered  like  grass ;'  or,  'If  heart  and 


xl  INTR  OD  UCTIOK 

by  creating  false  distinctions  not  intended  by  the  sacred  writers,  and  by  ob- 
literating  real  distinctions  which  are  more  or  less  important.  A  glance  into 
the  '' Encjlisliinan  s  Greek  Concordance  of  the  New  Testament'  will  furnish  an 
abundance  of  examples.*  The  variation  occurs  often  in  the  same  context  and 
even  the  same  verse,  where  the  repetition  would  be  as  beautiful  and  forcible  as 
the  repetition  of  Blessed  are  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  The  revisers  laid 
down,  in  their  preface,  the  false  and  mischievous  rule  '  not  to  tie  themselves 
to  a  uniformity  of  phrasing  or  to  an  identity  of  words, '  lest  they  be  charged 
'with  some  unequal  dealing  toward  a  great  number  of  English  words.' 
Perhaps  the  transition  state  of  the  English  language,  and  the  desire  to  melt 
the  Latin  and  Saxon  elements,  may  have  had  something  to  do  with  this  rule. 

(«.)  Needless  or  injurious  variations. 

aiix)vioQ,m  the  important  passage  Matt.  xxv.  46,  is  used  in  both  clauses ; 
and  yet  the  A.V.  has  there  ''everlasting  punishment'  and  'life  eternal.' 

diroKciXvipiQ  is  rendered  by  revelation,  Eom.  li.  5  (and  in  most  other  pas- 
sages); manifestation,  viii.  19  ;  coming,  1  Cor.  i.  7;  appearing,  1  Pet.  i.  7. 

« X  £ »;  ff  a  J  and  r)Xki]  era,  in  the  same  verse,  Matt,  xviii.  33,  have  had  com- 
passion and  had  pit  I/. 

ivfpyelvfin  the  same  verse,  ivorketh  and  to  do, Phil. ii.  13 (' God  worJceth 
to  will  and  to  work'). 

iTTiaKoiroQ  is  uniformly  translated  (or  transferred  rather)  bishop  (Phil, 
i.  1 ;  1  Tim.  iii.  2;  Tit.  i.  7;  1  Pet.  ii.  25),  except  in  A«ts  xx.  28,  where  it  is 
Anglicized  into  overseers,  and  thus  one  of  the  best  arguments  for  the  identity 

flesh  fail,  thou  art  the  strength  of  my  heart  and  my  portion  (lot)  for  ever;' 
or  the  version  of  the  twentj^-third  Psalm  ?  In  the  Lord's  Praj-er  some  fifty- 
four  words  are  Saxon,  and  the  remaining  six,  which  are  of  Latin  origin 
(trespasses,  trespass,  temptation,  deliver,  power,  glory),  could  easily  be  re- 
placed by  corresponding  Saxon  terms  (sins,  sin,  trial,  free,  might,  brightness). 
The  Douay  Bible  has  retained  from  the  Vulgate  '  supersubstantial  bread'  for 
'  daily  bread ! '  The  A.V. ,  however,  being  the  work  of  forty-seven  scholars,  is 
.not  uniform  in  the  preponderance  of  Saxon,  and  the  difference  is  quite 
marked.  Comp.  e.  g.  the  concluding  sentence  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
as  given  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  there  can  be  not  a  moment's  hesitation 
as  to  the  superiority  of  the  more  Saxon  rendering  of  Matthew. 


Luke  vi.  49. 
'Against  which  the  stream  did  beat 
vehemently,  and  immediately  it  fell ; 
and  the  ruin  of  that  house  was  great. ' 


Matt.  vii.  27. 

'And  the  rain  descended,  and  the 
floods  came,  and  the  winds  blew,  and 
beat  upon  that  house  ;  and  it  fell,  and 
great  was  the  fall  of  it. ' 

*  Fifth,  ed.,  London,  1868.  This  is  a  most  useful  book  for  the  proper  esti- 
mate of  the  Authorized  Version,  as  it  gives  the  passages  in  Enghsh,  while  re- 
taining (from  Bruder)  the  alphabetical  order  of  the  Greek  words  of  the  N.  T. 
The  same  is  true  oi^The  Englishman's  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  Concordance  of 
the  Old  Testament,'  third  ed.,  London,  1866,  2  vols.  It  is  more  convenient 
for  purposes  of  revision  than  Buxtorf  and  Fiirst.  Hudson's  Critical  Greek 
and  English  Concordance  of  the  New  Testament,  2d  ed.,  Boston,  1871  (revised 
by  Dr.  E.  Abbot),  is  also  of  special  value  for  the  work  of  revision. 


INTRODUCTIOX.  xli 

of  apostolic  and  primitive  bishops  and  presbyters  (comp.  tovq  Trpiv^vr'tpovQ, 
the  ciders,  \ei:  17,  who  are  the  same  persons  witli  the  sTriffKOTrot,  ver.  28)  is 
lost  to  the  English  reader.* 

^povog  is  throne,  Rev.  i.  4  ;  iii.  21 ;  iv.  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  and  many  other  pas- 
sages, when  used  of  God  and  of  Christ,  but  the  ^povoi  of  the  twenty-four  eld- 
ers who  reign  with  Christ  in  heaven  are  lowered  into  ^ seats,'  iv.  4,  and  the 
SpofOQ  of  Satan,  ii.  13,  as  well  as  that  of  the  beast  from  the  abyss,  xvi.  10,  is 
likewise  changed  into  a  'se</;,' and  thus  the  intended  antithetical  correspond- 
ence between  the  infernal  counterfeit  and  the  heavenly  original  is  destroyed. 

Xoyi^oi-iai,  in  the  sense  to  impute,  a  A'ery  important  word  in  Paul's  doc- 
trine of  declaratory  or  forensic  justification,  is  rendered  by  three  verbs  in  the 
same  chapter,  and  in  the  same  connection  with  SiKato(7vvri,\iz.  to  count,  Rom. 
iv.  3,  5  ;  to  reckon,  iv.  5,  9, 10 ;  to  impute,  iv,  6,  8,  11,  22,  23,  24. 

KUTaWayr],  atonement,  Rom.  v.  11 ;  reconciling,  xi.  15  ;  reconciliation,  2 
Cor.  v.  18,19. 

KvpioTTjc,  government,  2  Pet.  ii.lO,  but  in  the  parallel  passage,  Jude  8,  dig- 
nities. 

^o^oc,  darkness,  2  Pet.  ii.  4;  mist,  2  Pet.  ii.  17;  and  in  the  parallel  pas- 
sage, Jude  17,  blackness. 

TrapaKXrjToc,  when  used  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  rendered  (with  WiclifFe, 
Luther)  Comforter  (John  xiv.  16,  26 ;  xv.  26 ;  xvi.  7)  ;  when  used,  in  the  same 
sense,  of  Christ,  it  is  more  correctly  rendered  (with  the  Vulgate)  ^rfroca^e  (1 
John  ii.  1).  Grammatically,  7rapdK\i]Tog,heix\g  passive  in  form  (one  who  is 
called  in,  or  summoned  to  aid,  a  counsel  for  defense),  can  not  well  have  the 
active  meaning  of  Consolator,  Comforter  (which,  would  require  TrapaicXifTiop), 
but  the  familiar  Comforter,  in  old  English,  agreeably  to  its  derivation  from  the 
Latin  comfortari,  implied  the  idea  of  Strengthener,  Supporter,  which  comes 
nearer  the  meaning  of  Advocate,  and  expresses  an  important  office  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  so  that  it  should  better  be  retained,  either  in  the  text  with  Ad- 
vocate in  the  margin,  or  vice  versa.\ 

Xt'yoc  is  represented  in  the  A.V.  by  no  less  than  twenty-eight  different 
terms,  viz.  cause,  communication,  saying,  word,  account,  thing,  talk,  matter, 
question,  fame,  treatise,  speaker  (Acts  xiv.  12),  inouth  (xv.  27),  reason,  speech, 
work,  utterance,  to  say,  tidings,  etc. 

Karapysw  occurs  twenty-seven  times  in  the  N.  T.,  and  is  rendered  by  sev- 
enteen different  verbs,  to  cumber,  to  make  void,  to  make  of  none  effect,  to  do 
away,  to  put  down,  etc. 

"E\\jj  V,  now  Greek,  now  Gentile. 

Kavxaoi.iai  is  rendered  to  make  boast,  to  glory,  to  boast,  and  to  rejoice. 

*  In  this  case  one  feels  tempted  to  suspect  King  James's  revisers  of  Epis- 
copal bias,  since  most  of  them  probably  agreed  with  him  in  the  false  principle, 
'  No  bishop,  no  king. '  The  primitive  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters  in 
the  N.  T.  is  now  admitted  by  the  best  scholars  of  the  Church  of  England. 
See  Alford  on  Acts  xx.  17,  and  Lightfoot's  Excurs.  in  Comm.  on  Philippians. 

t  This  question  is  fully  discussed  by  Archdeacon  Hare  in  his  Mission  of 
the  Comforter,  and  by  myself  in  Lange  on  John,  pp.  440-442.  Lightfoot  (p. 
55,  Engl,  ed.)  strongly  pleads  for  Advocate  in  all  the  passages.  No  word  in 
the  English  language  can  express  the  full  meaning  of  TrapaKXriroc. 


xlii  INTRODUCTIOK 

Ktjpvffffw,  mostly  to  preach, hat  several  times  to  puhlish,  and  once  to  pi'o- 
claim  (Rev.  v.  2). 

fiapTvpnD,to  charge,  to  give,  to  record,  to  witness,  and  b\'  other  verbs. 

vapaKa\kii)\s  rendered  to  comfort,  to  beseech,  to  desire,  to  entreat,  to  exhort. 

irpo  (TKonfia,  offence,  stumbling,  stumbling-block,  stumbling-stone. 

TrpoawTTov,  appearance,  before,  countenance,  face,  fashion,  men's-  persons, 
outward  appearance,  person,  jiresence. 

Trpoipaaic,  which  occurs  but  seven  times, is  rendered /jre^ence  (3  times), 
shew  (once),  cloke  (twice),  color  (once). 

TVT70Q,  which  occurs  in  IT)  passages  (16  times),  is  given  by  8  variations, 
y\z.  print,  figure,  fashion,  manner,  form,  example,  ensample,  pattern. 

fisvo)  has  10,  6piL,<i>  5,  ox^oq  6,  TraiSioKr]  5,  TroXefiog  4,  airovSi}  7, 
(TvvcpyoQ  7,  au>^ui  7,  VTcayia  6,  varipkd)  9,  (piXaSsXtpia  3,  (pipcj  IG, 
X|0£j'a  9,  \l/d\Xu>  3,  ^vxv  8,  ware  9  different  translations. 

(b.)  Obliteration  of  impoetant  distinctions. 

^St]£,i.  e.  the  whole  invisible  spirit-world,  the  receptacle  of  all  the  dead 
(Unterwelt,  Todtenreich),  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  Sheol,  is  uniformly 
(11  times  in  the  Kew  Testament)  translated  hell,  except  once  (1  Cor.  xv.  55, 
grave),  and  thus  confounded  with  yievva,  which  is  likewise  (in  12  places) 
so  translated,  and  correctly,  for  gehenna  means  the  eternal  state  and  place  of 
damnation  and  torment.  The  same  confusion  is  found  in  Luther's  and  other 
versions,  and  hence  the  distinction  between  Hades  or  Sheol,  and  Hell,  is  almost 
lost  in  the  popular  mind,  and  Christ's  descent  into  Hades  is  very  little  under- 
stood. 

ciuKovoL  and  ooCXot,  in  the  parable.  Matt.  xxii.  1-14,  are  alike  ren- 
dered servants,  although  the  former  are  angels  and  the  latter  men. 

Brfpia  and  ?wa,  in  the  Apocalypse,  iv.  6,  7,  8,  9 ;  v.  G  ;  vi.  1,  etc.,  are  alike 
translated  '  beasts  ;^  yet  the  Zuia  are  the  heavenly  representatives  of  all  created 
life  worshipping  before  the  throne  in  heaven,  and  the  very  opposite  of  the  Brjpia, 
their  hellish  antagonists,  which  arise  from  the  bottomless  pit  and  demand  idol- 
atrous worship  (vi.  8  ;  xi.  7 ;  xiii.  1  seq.,  14  seq. ;  xiv.  9,  etc.). 

With  all  the  wealth  of  the  English  language,  one  word  is  sometimes  made 
to  do  service  for  half  a  dozen  or  more  Greek  terms,  without  regard  to  their 
nice  and  delicate  shades  of  meaning. 

abide  stands  for  dvaarpi^iD,  al^XiZo/iai,  Siarpifiu),  t7nixtvui,'i(TT)]i.u,  Karapiru), 
n'ivit),  napafiEvu),  Troiiio,  viro/ievix). 

acceptable  for  cnroSeiCTog,  dtK-uc,  tvcipioTOQ,  tvirpCaitKroq,  xcipiq. 

accusation  for  airia,  Kanjyop'ia,  Kpiaig. 

affliction  for  BXi\pic,  KaKuaic,  Trd^i^jia. 

appear  for  avacpaivopai,  ifi(pavii^(j),  tTrifaivWffpxofiai,  oTrropat,  (paivix),  <pav- 
ipow. 

bad  for  kukoc,  irovTjpog,  aairpug. 

bring  forth  for  dvdyo),  dvoKvtu),  fiXaardvo),  ytvvdu),  SiSw/xi,  f  (c/3aXXw,  iKfipio, 
i^dyu),  Kardyo),  irapadiSoDfii,  TTOiiui,  Trpodyw,  irpo(pspu),  tiktoj,  ^ipio. 

but  for  dXXd,  yap,  idv,  d  /i»;,  tKTog,  i'l,  jxivtoi,  fir],  idv  pi),  povov,  ovv,  ttXtiv. 

call  for  iiriKaX'iopai,  tTriXfyopai,  tTrw,  lari,  KoXeu),  Xiyio,  peraKaXtopai,  ovo- 
pd^u),  Tvpoaayoptvopai,  irpotTKaXiopai,  aiTtw,  pfraKaXtopat,  ptTaTripTTU),  napa- 
KaXiw,  TTpoaKaXkopai,  ^ujviu). 


INTRODUCTION.  .     xUii 

child  for  (3p8^og,  vi)irioc,  Traidapiov,  rraidiov,  iraXg,  tekvov,  vISq. 

choose  for  a'lpsofjiai,  aiptriZi^,  iKXiyofxai,  tniXiyo^ai,  Trpoxup'hOnai,  x^^po- 
Tovku). 

conversation  for  avaarpoipr],  rpoTTog,  iroXiTivfia. 

devil  for  didj3o\o£,  dai/xuv,  and  Sai/xoriov. 

gift  for  avdOrj/xa,  Sofia,  Soaic,  dwpid,  Swprjfia,  Swpov,  nepi<r[i.6g,  xdpig,  xd- 
pidfia. 

worship  for  ivaifiku),  Sripairtvu),  Xarptvu),  TrpoaKvvsoj,  ffsf3d!^oiJiat,  aijBopai. 

come  stands  for  no  less  than  32  Greek  verbs,  command  for  8,  consider  for  J 1 , 
continue  for  13,  declare  for  1 4,  desire  for  13,  depart  for  21,  dwell  for  5,  eat  for  G, 
except  for  7,  finish  for  7,  fulfil  for  7,  give  for  14,  go  for  16,  know  for  7,  wnA-e 
for  13,  mighty  for  7,  raiment  for  5,  perceive  for  11,  receive  for  18,  servant  for 
7,  s/ja»ie  for  G,  <ai-e  for  21,  i/ij'ni  for  12,  yet  for  10  different  Greek  words. 

5.  Archaisms. 

To  remove  obsolete  archaisms,  and  to  substitute  intelli- 
gible words  and  phrases. 

There  is  a  difference  between  antique  and  antiquated  words  and  phrases. 
The  former  should  be  retained,  the  latter  be  removed.  Archaisms  which, 
though  seldom  or  never  used  in  modern  English,  are  still  intelligible,  may 
even  enhance  the  solemnity  and  ijungency  of  the  Bible  diction,  which  ought 
to  soar  above  the  vulgarity  and  familiarity  of  common  speech.  Here  belong 
such  words  as  'list,'  'travail,'  'twain,'  'forasmuch,'  'howbeit;'  the  ending 
'eth'  for  's'  in  the  third  person  singular  of  the  verb;  the  old  preterites  'clave,' 
'  brake,' '  sware ;'  such  phrases  as  '  well  stricken  in  years,'*  '  threescore  years 
and  ten.' 

Antiquated  archaisms  are : 

(o.)  Words  which  have  gone  more  or  less  out  of  use,  and  are 
NOT  understood  bt  THE  PEOPLE  :  taches,  ouches,  knops,  neesings,  daysman 
(in  the  O.  T.),  all  to  (for  altogether,  in  Judges  i.x.  53,  'and  all  to  brake  his 
skull,'  with  no  corresponding  word  in  Hebrew),  goodman  (for  householder, 
Matt.  xxi.  11 ;  comp.  ver.  1),  Jewry  (for  Judcea,  John  vii.  1 ;  Luke  xxiii.  5). 

(6.)  Words  which  are  still  used,  but  have  changed  their  mean- 
ing :  to  prevent,  in  the  sense  of  pravenire,  to  come  be/ore,  to  anticipate  (Matt. 
xvii.  25,  Trpoi^Qaaev)  ;  to  let,  in  the  sense  to  hinder  (2  Thess.  ii.  7)  ;  charger 
(now  mostly  used  for  a  horse  in  battle),  in  the  sense  of  platter  (Matt.  xiv.  8); 
carriages,  for  baggage  (Acts  xxi.  1 5) ;  robbers  of  churches,  for  robbers  of 
(heathen)  temples  QtpoavXoi,  Acts  xix.  37) ;  nephews,  for  grandchildren  or  de- 
scendants (tKyova,  1  Tim.  v.  4)  ;  to  offend,  for  cattse  to  stumble  (oKavdaXi^M, 
often);  and  offence,  for  stumbling-block,  scandal,  cause  of  sinning  or  ruin 
(aKavoaXov,  Matt,  xviii.  7,  etc.)  ;  ^generation  of  vipers,'  for  brood,  offspring 
(ytvtu);  devotiotis,  for  idols  or  objects  of  devotion  (ailSdff para,  Acts  xvii.  23); 
'not  slothful  in  business,'  for  diligence  (Rom.  xii.  11,  ry  airovSy  /»/  oKvrjpoi; 
corap.  ver.  8) ;  conversation,  in  the  sense  of  deportment,  moral  conduct  (Phil, 
i,  27,  for  iroXiTtvfoOf,  let  your  conversation  be;  Phil.  iii.  20,  for  iroXirtvpa, 

*  David  Hume,  iu  his  brief  autobiography,  uses  this  phrase  of  himself. 


xliv  INIRODVCTION. 

which  is  mistaken  for  avaarpodn),  also  by  Luther,  but  means  either  countrt/, 
commonweal  til,  or  citizenship);  ^  take  no  thought  for  your  life,' for  anxious 
thought,  or  be  not  troubled  about  (^))  ixspinvdrs,  Matt.  vi.  2~>,  31,  34) ;  '  occu- 
py  till  I  come,'  for  trade  ye  (TrpayiiarevaaaOe,  Luke  xix.  13  ;  comp.  ver.  15)  ; 
coast,  frequently  for  border  or  region  ;  quarrel,  for  complaint  {querela.  Col. 
iii.  13) ;  dishonesty,  for  shame  (2  Cor.  iv.  2) ;  instantly,  in  the  sense  of  ur- 
gently (Luke  vii.  4)  ;  'I  know  nothing  by  myself  (perhaps  a  mistranslation), 
for  '■against  myself  (1  Cor.  iv.  4,  oijSiv  ijiavn^  avvoiSa) ;  ''do  to  wit'  (2  Cor. 
viii.  1),  for  'make  known;'  'carefuV  (Phil.  iv.  6),  for  'anxious.' 

'  To  yield  up  the  ghost'  should  give  way,  in  Matt.  xvii.  50,  to  '  yielded  up 
his  spirit,'  as  the  former  is  now  used  in  a  low  or  less  serious  sense. 

As  to  the  fomiliar  which  for  who  when  referring  to  persoris,  the  majority  of 
American  revisers  would  probably  prefer  the  change,  as  it  has  become  quite 
familiar  in  the  use  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  (in  all  American  editions  of  the  Com- 
mon Prayer-Book).  It  is  unwise  to  bring  the  language  of  the  Church  into 
conflict  with  the  language  of  the  school.  But  the  English  feeling  will  prob- 
ably retain  this  and  a  number  of  other  archaic  forms ;  and  concessions  on 
such  points  should  be  readily  made  by  the  American  revisers. 

6.  Pi'oper  Names, 
To  introduce  uniformity  in  the  spelling  of  proper  names 
of  persons  and  places,  retaining,  as  a  rule,  the  Hebrew 
forms  for  Hebrew  names,  the  Greek  forms  for  Greek, 
except  where  a  foreign  name  has  been  thoroughly  natural- 
ized and  unalterably  fixed  in  English  usage,  as  in  the  fa- 
miliar names  Jesus  (the  Saviour)  for  Joshua  (the  leader 
of  Israel),  Mary  for  Miriam,  James  for  Jacob,  John  for 
Johannes,  Matthew  for  Matthfeus,  Andreio  for  Andreas, 
Paul  for  Paulus,  Peter  for  Petrus,  Stephen  for  Stephanus, 
Jerusalem  f  or  Yerushalaim  or  Hierosolyma,  Athens,  Rome, 
and  a  few  more. 

(a.)  Hebrew  and  Gkeek  foems  : 

(1.)  Persons: 

Hagar  (in  the  O.  T.)  and'  Agar  (Gal.  iv.  24,  25).  Elijah  (in  the  0.  T.) 
and  Elias  (in  the  N.).  Elisha  andEHseus.  Isaiah,  Esaias,  and  Esay.  Jer- 
emiah (in  the  O.  T.)  and  Jeremias  (Matt.  xvi.  14),  also  Jeremy  (twice  in 
Matt.  ii.  1 7  ;  xvii.  9).  Hosea  and  Osee  (Rom.  ix.  25).  Jonah  and  Jonas. 
Obadiah  and  Abdias.  Zechariah  and  Zacharias.  Korah  and  Core  (Jude  1 1). 
Noah  (3  times  in  the  N.  T.)  and  Noe  (5  times  in  the  N.  T.).  Eahab  and 
Rachab.  Judah  and  Judas,  also  Jude.  Joshua,  and  Jesus.  The  substitu- 
tion of  .Testis  for  Joshua  in  Acts  vii.  45  ('  brought  in  with  Jesus  into  the  pos- 
session of  the  Gentiles'),  and  in  Heb.  iv.  8  ('If  Jesus  had  given  them  rest'), 
is  especially  mischievous,  and  should  by  all  means  be  corrected. 


INTRODUCTION.  xlv 

(2.)  Places: 

Asshuv  and  Assyria.  Cush  and  Ethiopia.  Phrat  and  Euphrates.  Edom 
and  Idumea.  Koresh  and  Cyras.  Sodom  (generally)  and  Sodoma  (Rom. 
ix.  29). 

(6.)  Double  Hebrew  or  Greek  forms  : 

Balac  and  Balak.  Enoch  and  Henoch.  Enos  and  Enosh.  Cainan  and 
Kenan.  Gedeon  and  Gideon.  Jephthae  and  Jephthah.  Judah  and  Juda. 
Jared  and  Jered.  Jonah  and  Jona.  Melchisedec  and  Melchizedek.  Seth 
and  Sheth. 

Canaan  and  Kanaan.  Gomorrha  and  Gomorrah.  Sina  (in  Acts)  and  Si- 
nai (Gal.  iv.  24,  25). 

(c.)  Latin  (or  Hebrew,  or  Greek)  and  English  terminations  : 
Lucas  and  Luke  (Col.  iv.  14 ;  Philem.  24).  Marcus  (three  times,  Col.  iv.  10; 
Philem.  24;  1  Pet.  v.  13)  and  Mark  (four  times  in  Acts,  and  once  in  the  Epp. 
2  Tim.  iv.  11).  Judas  and  Jude.  Timotheus  and  Timothy  (even  in  the  same 
chapter,  2  Cor.  i.  1, 19).  Jacob  ('IaKw/3,  used  of  the  patriarch)  and  James 
('Idicw/3oc,  of  James  the  elder,  James  of  Alpheus,  and  James  the  brother  of 
the  Lord).  Jeremiah  and  Jeremy  (retained  in  English  names,  as  that  of 
Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor).  Miriam  (of  the  sister  of  Moses)  and  Maiy  (to  be 
retained  for  the  mother  of  Jesus).     Urbanus  and  Urbane  (or  Urban). 

Grecia  and  Greece.  Judoea  and  Jewry  (the  latter  only  in  Dan.  v.  13 ; 
John  vii.  1  ;  Luke  xxiii.  5).  Tyrus  and  Tyre.  (Miletus,  Acts  xx.  15, 17, 
and  Miletum,  2  Tim.  iv.  20.)  Cretes  and  Cretians  (Cretans  is  better  than  ei- 
ther). Areopagus  and  Mars'-hill  (in  the  same  chapter.  Acts  xvii.  19,  22). 
Calvaiy  and  'A  place  of  a  skull.'* 

7".  Accessories. 
To  revise  the  orthography,  the  punctuation,  the  use  of 
capitals  (as  in  Spirit,  Father,  Son,  Redeemer,  Scrij)tures, 
etc.),  the  words  in  italics,  the  marginal  references,  the  chro- 
nology (of  Usher),  and  the  headings  of  chapters  and  col- 
umns, all  in  conformity  with  the  style  of  translation,  the 
most  approved  standards,  and  present  scholarship  and  usage. 

*  Our  Calvary,  which  is  used  only  in  Luke  xxii.  33,  for  Kpaviov  (a  diminu- 
tive of  (cpaj/ov),  a  skull,  is  derived  from  the  Vulgate,  which  renders  the  He- 
brew Golgotha  by  calvaria  (fem.  i.  e.  skuU)  in  three  other  passages  (Matt. 
xxvii.  33,  Mark  xv.  22,  and  John  xix.  17).  It  is  too  deejjly  imbedded  in 
Christian  poetry  and  devotion  to  be  given  up.  The  popular  expression  '■Mount 
Calvarrf  has  no  Scripture  foundation,  and  is  probably  of  monastic  origin. 
The  Evangelists  describe  Golgotha  simply  as  roTroc'a  place, 'or  'the  Place 
of  Skull.'  It  was  probably  only  a  small,  round,  and  barren  elevation  in  the 
shape  of  a  skull,  and  derived  its  name  from  its  globular  form.  See  my  text- 
ual notes  in  Lange,  on  Matthew  xxvii.  33,  p.  519  seq.,  and  on  John  xix.  17, 
p.  582  seq. 


xlvi  INTRODUCTION. 

These  accessory  matters,  not  being  represented  in  the  original  text,  belong 
to  the  boundary-line  between  translation  and  interpretation,  and  more  free- 
dom should  be  allowed  here  to  the  revisers  than  in  the  translation  proper. 
The  careful  labors  of  the  American  Bible  Societ}',  as  laid  down  in  the  edition 
of  1852,  which  was  set  aside  again  by  a  subsequent  standard  edition  of  18C0, 
more  nearly  conformed  to  the  older  editions,  might  be  made  available  to 
good  purpose. 

8.  Arrangement. 
Finally,  to  combine  with  the  received  division  into  chap- 
ters and  verses  an  arrangement  of  the  prose  in  paragraphs, 
and  a  metrical  arrangement  of  poetry,  according  to  the 
laws  of  Hebrew  parallelism. 

The  division  into  chapters,  which  dates  from  Cardinal  Hugo  de  Santo  Caro 
in  the  13th  century  (d.  1263),  and  the  division  into  verses,*  first  introduced 
in  the  Old  Testament  by  Pagninus,  in  his  edition  of  1528,  then  completely  by 
Kobert  Stephens,  1555,  in  his  edition  of  the  Vulgate,  and  1551,  in  his  (-tth)  edi- 
tion of  the  Greek  Testament,  though  very  defective,!  must,  of  course,  for  the 
sake  of  convenience,  be  retained,  but  should  by  all  means  be  supplemented  by 
a  more  reasonable  and  appropriate  arrangement  according  to  sections,  stan- 
zas, and  verses.  Much  of  the  beauty  of  the  Bible  is  lost  to  the  common 
reader  by  the  uniform  printing  of  poetr}'  and  prose.  If  we  have  our  hymn- 
books  printed  like  poetry,  why  not  also  the  inspired  hymn-book,  the  Psalter  ? 

This  improvement,  in  which  scholars  and  educated  men  are  more  interest- 
ed than  the  mass  of  Bible  readers,  will  probably  be  strenuously  opposed ;  for 
since  it  strikes  the  eye,  it  would  create  the  impression  that  the  revised  version 
is  a  different  version  from  the  familiar  old  Bible.  J    But  this  difficulty  can 

*  Not  to  be  confounded  with  the  older  versus  or  arixoi. 

t  Thus  the  very  first  chapter  of  Genesis  ought  by  all  means  to  include  the 
first  three  verses  of  the  second  chapter,  which  are  an  indispensable  part  of  the 
first  account  of  creation.  The  first  chapter  of  Matthew  ought  to  contain  only 
the  genealogy  of  Jesus  till  ver.  17,  and  the  first  chapter  of  John  the  Prologue 
to  ver.  18.  The  versicular  division  which  the  learned  printer  Stephens  (Eti- 
enne)  is  said  to  have  made  on  a  horseback  journey  (inter  equitanduiTi)  from 
Paris  to  Lyons  (see  Bleek,  Einleituiuj  in  das  N.  T.,  p.  G93),  is  entirely  out  of 
place  in  the  narrative  sections  of  the  Bible,  and  very  often  breaks  the  connec- 
tion. The  judgment  of  Reuss,  in  his  GescMcJite  des  Neuen  Testaments  (p. 
390,  4th  ed.),  is  hardly  too  severe:  'Z)«e  Einthdlung  (in  Verse)  ist  an  s^/i 
unsinnig,  unzdhlige  Male  fehlerhaft  und  selhst  im  besten  Falle  entbehrlich  fiir 
das  Verstdndniss,  das  sie  eher  hindern  als  fordern  kann.^  At  the  same  time, 
for  purposes  of  quotation,  the  division  is  very  convenient,  and  has,  no  doubt, 
contributed  much  to  the  comparative  study  of  the  Bible.  Com])are  on  the 
whole  subject  Dr.  William  Wright,  art.  Ferse,  in  Kitto's  Cycl.ofBibl.Lit., 
where  numerous  errors  of  preceding  writers  are  corrected. 

%  The  way  is  prepared,  however,  by  several  editions  of  the  A.V.  in  this 
style,  especially  '■The  Cambridge  Paragraph  Bible,'  edited  by  the  Eev.  R  H. 


INTRODUCTION.  xlvii 

easily  be  removed  by  issuing  two  editions,  one  of  which  should  be  conformed 
to  the  usual  Bibles,  in  which  the  paragraphs  should  be  marked  by  signs. 

The  metrical  arrangement  should  be  carried  out  in  the  Psalms,  the  Book 
of  Job  (except  the  narrative  prologue  and  epilogue),  the  Proverbs,  the  Song 
of  Songs,  Lamentations,  and  the  poetic  portions  of  the  Prophets  ;  also  in  the 
lyric  and  prophetic  parts  of  the  historical  books,  as  the  Song  of  Lamech 
(Gen.  iv.),  the  Prediction  of  Noah  (Gen.  ix.),  the  Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen. 
xlix.),  the  Song  of  Moses  (Ex.  xv.),  the  Prophecy  of  Balaam  (Numb,  xxiv.j, 
the  Song  of  Deborah  (Judg.  v.),  the  Elegy  of  David  on  Jonathan  (2  Sam.  i.)  ; 
and  as  to  the  New  Testament,  in  the  Benedictus  of  Zachariah,  the  Magnifi- 
cat of  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  Parting  Song  of  Simeon,  the  poetic  citations  scat- 
tered through  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  (e.  g.  1  Tim.  iii.  16),  and  the  anthems 
of  the  Apocalypse. 

A  few  examples  must  suffice. 

THE  SONG  OF  LAMECH.  Gen.  Iv.  23,  24. 
This  proud,  defiant  song  of  blood-revenge,  or  '  sword-song'  (as  Herder  calls 
it),  which  commemorates  the  invention  of  weapons  of  brass  and  iron  by  La- 
mech's  son  Tubal-Cain,  and  the  invention  of  musical  instruments  by  his  son 
Jubal  (=Harper),  and  which  marks  the  origin  of  worldly  poetry  and  music 
among  the  descendants  of  Cain,  has  already  all  the  characteristics  of  Hebrew 
poetry  :  parallelism,  rhythm,  and  assonance. 

'Adah  and  Zillah!  hear  my  voice. 

Ye  wives  of  Lamech,  hearken  unto  my  speech : 

For  a  man  have  I  slain*  for  wounding  me, 
Even  a  young  man  for  hurting  me. 

Truly,  Cain  shall  be  avenged  seven-fold, 
But  Lamech  seventy-and-sevenfold.' 

THE    SONG    OF    THE    VIRGIN   MART.       Luke  i.  46-55. 

And  Mary  said : 

**  My  soul  doth  magnify  the  Lord, 

*'      And  my  Spirit  rejoicedt  in  God  my  Saviour, 

*"  Because  he  looked  upon  the  low  estate  of  his  handmaid. 

For,  behold,  from  henceforth  all  generations  will  call  me  blessed. 

Scrivener,  for  the  syndics  of  the  University  Press,  Cambridge  and  London, 
1870. 

*  The  perfect,  I  have  slain  C^PSj!^,  Sept.  dniKnivafVulg.  occidi),  is  prob- 
ably used  in  the  spirit  of  arrogant  boasting,  to  express  the  future  with  all  the 
certainty  of  an  accomplished  fact.  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Jerome,  Rashi, 
set  Lamech  down  as  a  murderer  (of  Cain),  confessing  his  deed  to  ease  his 
conscience  ;  but  Aben-Ezra,  Calvin,  Herder,  Ewald,  Delitzsch,  take  the  verb 
as  a  threat :  '  I  will  slay  any  man  who  wounds  me. ' 

1 1  have  thi'oughout  substituted  the  Greek  aoiists,  ^yaXXiaaiv,  iTTifiXtil/ev, 
iTToirjaiv,  »:.r.\.,for  the  perfects  of  the  A.V.  ;  but  as  the  Magnificat  is  incor- 
porated into  the  Anglican  Liturgy,  such  changes  will  scarcely  be  made. 


xiviii  introduction: 

*'  For  the  Mighty  One  did  great  things  for  me ; 

And  holy  is  His  name, 
'"  And  His  mercy  is  from  generation  to  generation 

Upon  them  that  fear  Him. 

"  He  wrought  strength  with  his  arm  : 

He  scattered  the  proud  in  the  imagination  of  their  hearts. 
'°  He  put  down  princes  from  thrones, 

And  raised  up  them  of  low  degree. 

'^  The  hungry  he  filled  with  good  things ; 

And  the  rich  he  sent  away  empty. 
*'  He  gave  help  to  Israel,  His  servant, 

In  remembrance  of  His  mercy 
**  (As  he  spake  to  our  fothers) 

To  Abraham*  and  his  seed  forever. 


Conclusion. 

In  the  preceding  discussion  I  liave  barely  touched  upon 
the  Old  Testament,  which  would  require  a  separate  treat- 
ise. In  some  respects  a  revision  of  the  English  translation 
of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  especially  the  Book  of  Job  and 
the  Prophets,  is  even  more  needed  than  that  of  the  Greek 
Testament.  Shemitic  scholarship  is  not  so  abundant  in 
England  and  America  as  classical  learning ;  but  it  is  far 
more  critical  and  accurate  in  the  nineteenth  century  than 
it  was  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth.  Important  addi- 
tions to  the  Old  Testament  exegesis  are  now  made  almost 
every  j^ear.  But  if  we  are  to  M'ait  for  perfection,  we  shall 
have  to  wait  forever.  Let  us  make  our  work  as  perfect 
as  we  can,  and  let  future  generations  make  it  still  more 
perfect. 

The  revision  must  be  chiefly  a  work  of  Biblical  scholar- 
ship. But  its  success  will  depend  by  no  means  on  scholar- 
ship alone.  The  most  thorough  knowledge  of  Hebrew  and 
Greek  would,  after  all,  only  enable  us  to  understand  the 
letter  and  the  historical  relations  of  the  Scripture,  but  not 

*  Tfp  'A(3pa(i^i  must  be  connected  with  ixr)]adrjvai  iXtovg,  not  with  tXdXrjatv, 
as  in  the  Authorized  Version. 


INTR  OB  UCTIOX.  xl  i  X 

its  soul,  ■\vliich  lives  in  the  body  of  the  letter.  The  Bible 
is  a  diviue  as  well  as  a  human  book,  and  reflects  the  thean- 
thropic  character  of  the  incarnate  Logos.  To  understand, 
to  translate,  and  to  interpret  the  Word  of  God,  we  must  be 
in  sympathy  with  its  spirit,  which  is  the  Holy  Spirit.  Pro- 
found sympathy  with  the  ideas  of  the  Bible,  religious  en- 
thusiasm, a  reverent  and  devout  spirit,  breathe  through  the 
Vulgate,  Luther's  German,  and  the  authorized  English  ver- 
sions, and  gave  them  such  enduring  power ;  and  only  the 
same  qualities,  united  with  superior  scholarship,  can  com- 
mend the  proposed  revision  to  the  acceptance  of  our 
Churches. 

No.  40  Bible  House,  New  York,  October  4, 1872. 

D 


ON 


A  FRESH  REVISION 


ENGLISH  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


BY 


J.  B.  LIGHTFOOT,  D.D., 

CANON   OP   ST.  PATJL'8, 
ANT)    UULSEAN    ritOFESSOR    OF    DIVINITY,    CAMBRIDGE. 


SECOND  EDITION,  REVISED. 


NEW    YORK: 

HARPER   &   BROTHERS,    PUBLISHERS, 

FRANK  I- IN      SQUARE. 

1873. 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 


DuEixG  the  last  summer,  immediately  before  the  Com- 
pany appointed  for  the  revision  of  the  English  ISTew  Testa- 
ment held  its  first  sitting,  I  was  invited  to  read  a  paper  on 
the  subject  before  a  clerical  meeting.  Finding  that  I  had 
already  written  more  than  I  could  venture  to'  read  even  to 
a  very  patient  and  considerate  audience,  and  receiving  a 
request  from  my  hearers  at  the  conclusion  that  the  paper 
should  be  printed,  I  determined  to  revise  the  whole  and 
make  additions  to  it  before  publication.  The  result  is  the 
present  volume.  Owing  to  various  interruptions,  its  appear- 
ance has  been  delayed  much  longer  than  I  had  anticipated. 

This  statement  of  facts  was  perhaps  needed  to  justify 
the  appearance  of  a  book  which,  as  occupying  well-known 
ground,  can  not  urge  the  plea  of  novelty,  which  has  many 
imperfections  in  form,  and  which  makes  no  pretensions  to 
completeness.  At  all  events,  it  aj)peared  necessary  to  be 
thus  explicit,  in  order  to  show  that  I  alone  am  responsible 
for  any  expressions  of  opinion  contained  in  this  volume, 
and  that  they  do  not  (except  accidentally)  represent  the 
views  of  the  Company  of  which  I  am  a  member.  In  pre- 
paring the  original  paper  for  the  press,  I  have  been  careful 
not  to  go  beyond  verbal  alterations  where  I  was  discussing 
the  prospects  of  the  new  revision  or  the  principles  which 
in  my  opinion  ought  to  guide  it.     On  the  other  hand,  I 


iv  PREFACE 

have  not  scrupled  to  develop  these  principles  freely,  and  to 
add  fresh  illustrations  from  time  to  time,  but  in  most  cases 
this  has  been  done  without  any  knowledge  of  the  opinion 
of  the  majority  of  the  Company ;  and  in  the  comparatively 
few  instances  where  this  opinion  has  become  known  to  me, 
I  have  expressed  my  own  individual  judgment,  which  might 
or  might  not  accord  therewith. 

I  ought  to  add,  also,  that  I  am  quite  prepared  to  find,  on 
consultation  with  others,  that  some  of  the  suggestions  of- 
fered here  are  open  to  objections  which  I  had  overlooked, 
and  which  might  render  them  impracticable  in  a  version 
intended  for  popular  use,  whatever  value  they  may  have 
from  a  scholar's  point  of  view. 

The  hopeful  anticipations  which  I  had  ventured  to  ex- 
press before  the  commencement  of  the  work  have  been 
more  than  realized  hitherto  in  its  progress.  On  this  point 
I  have  not  heard  a  dissentient  voice  among  members  of  the 
Company.  I  believe  that  all  who  have  taken  part  regular- 
ly in  the  work  will  thankfully  acknowledge  the  earnestness, 
moderation,  truthfulness,  and  reverence  which  have  marked 
the  deliberations  of  the  Company,  and  which  seem  to  jus- 
tify the  most  sanguine  auguries. 

This  feeling  contrasts  strangely  with  the  outcry  which 
has  been  raised  against  the  work  by  those  who  have  had 
no  opportunity  of  witnessing  its  actual  progress,  who  have 
been  disturbed  by  rumors  of  its  results  either  wholly  false 
or  only  partially  true,  and  who,  necessarily  judging  on  a 
priori  grounds,  have  been  ready  to  condemn  it  unheard. 
This  panic  was  perhaps  not  unnatural,  and  might  have  been 
anticipated.  Meanwhile,  however,  other  dangers  from  an 
unforeseen  quarter  have  threatened  the  progress  of  the  re- 
vision, but  these  are  now  happily  averted ;  and,  so  far  as 
present  appearances  can  be  trusted,  the  momentary  peril 
has  resulted  in  permanent  good,  for  the  Company  has  been 


PEEFACE.  V 

taught  by  the  daDger  which  threatened  it  to  feel  its  own 
strength  and  coherence,  and  there  is  every  prospect  that 
the  work  will  be  brought  happily  and  successfully  to  a 
conclusion. 

Great  misunderstanding  seems  to  prevail  as  to  the  ulti- 
mate reception  of  the  work.  The  alarm  which  has  been 
expressed  in  some .  quarters  can  only  be  explained  by  a 
vague  confusion  of  thought,  as  though  the  Houses  of  Con- 
vocation, while  solemnly  pledged  to  the  furtherance  of  the 
work  on  definite  conditions,  were  also  pledged  to  its  ulti- 
mate reception  whether  good  or  bad.  If  the  distinction 
had  been  kept  in  view,  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  there 
would  have  been  even  a  momentary  desire  to  repudiate  the 
obligations  of  a  definite  contract.  The  Houses  of  Convo- 
cation are  as  free  as  the  different  bodies  of  Nonconform- 
ists represented  in  the  Companies  to  reject  the  Eevised 
Version,  when  it  appears, if  it  is  not  satisfactory.  I  do  not] 
suppose  that  any  member  of  either  Company  would  think! 
of  claiming  any  other  consideration  for  the  work,  when 
completed,  than  that  it  shall  be  judged  by  its  intrinsic  mer- 
its ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  have  a  right  to  demand 
that  it  shall  be  laid  before  the  Church  and  the  people  of 
England  in  its  integrity,  and  that  a  verdict  shall  be  pro- 
nounced upon  it  as  a  whole. 

I  can  not  close  these  remarks  without  expressing  my 
deep  thankfulness  that  I  have  been  allowed  to  take  part  in 
this  work  of  revision.  I  have  spent  many  happy  and  profit- 
able houi's  over  it,  and  made  many  friends  who  otherwise 
would  probably  have  remained  unknown  to  me.  Even 
though  the  work  should  be  terminated  abruptly  to-morrow, 
I,  for  one,  should  not  consider  it  lost  labor. 

In  choosing  my  examples,  I  have  generally  avoided  dwell- 
ing on  passages  which  have  been  fully  discussed  by  others ; 
but  it  was  not  possible  to  put  the  case  fairly  before  the 


vi  PREFACE.  , 

public  without  venturing  from  time  to  time  on  preoccupied 
ground,  tliough  in  sucli  instances  I  have  endeavored  to  tread 
as  lightly  as  possible. 

The  discussion  in  the  Appendix  perhaps  needs  some 
apology.  Though  it  has  apparently  no  very  direct  bearing 
on  the  main  subject  of  the  volume,  yet  the  investigation 
was  undertaken,  in  the  first  instance,  with  a  view  to  my 
work  as  a  reviser;  and  hoping  that  the  results  might  con- 
tribute towards  permanently  fixing  the  meaning  of  an  ex- 
pression which  occurs  in  the  most  familiar  and  most  sacred 
of  all  forms  of  words,  and  which  nevertheless  has  been  and 
still  is  variously  interpreted,  I  gladly  seized  this  opportunity 
of  placing  them  on  record. 

Trinity  College,  Cambridge,  4/;r^7  3, 1871. 


PREFACE 

TO   THE  SECOND  EDITION. 


This  second  edition  is  in  all  essential  respects  a  reprint 
of  the  first.  A  few  errors  have  been  corrected,  and  one  or 
two  unimportant  additions  made,  but  the  new  matter  alto- 
gether would  not  occupy  more  than  a  page. 

The  reception  accorded  to  this  book  has  taken  me  by 
surprise,  and  the  early  call  for  a  new  edition  would  have 
prevented  me  from  making  any  great  changes,  even  if  I 
had  felt  any  desire  to  do  so.  To  my  critics,  whether  pub- 
lic or  private,  I  can  only  return  my  very  sincere  thanks  for 
their  generous  welcome  of  a  work  of  whose  imperfections 
the  author  himself  must  be  only  too  conscious. 

From  this  expression  of  gratitude  I  see  no  reason  to  ex- 
cept the  critique  of  Mr.  Earle  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the 
editor  of  the  Guardian  ^  but  I  am  sure  that  he  will  pardon 
me  if,  while  thankfully  acknowledging  the  friendly  tone  of 
his  letter,  I  venture  entirely  to  dissent  from  a  principle  of 
translation  to  wliicli  he  has  lent  the  authority  of  his  name. 

In  fact,  he  has  attacked  the  very  position  in  my  work 
which  I  confidently  held,  and  still  hold,  to  be  impregnable. 
I  had  laid  it  down  as  a  rule  (subject,  of  course,  to  special 
exceptions)  that,  where  the  same  word  occurs  in  the  same 
context  in  the  original,  it  should  be  rendered  by  the  same 
equivalent  in  the  version  (p.  33  seq.) ;  or,  as  Mr,  Earle  ex- 
presses it,  that  "a  verbal  repetition  in  English  should  be 
employed  to  represent  a  verbal  repetition  in  the  Greek." 


viii  PREFACE. 

Mr.  Earle  (I  will  employ  his  own  words)  would  reverse  this, 
and  say  that  in  many  of  my  details  he  would  practically 
come  to  my  conclusion,  but  that  the  principle  itself,  with 
all  the  speciousness  of  its  appearance,  is  essentially  un- 
sound. This  position  he  endeavors  to  establish  by  argu- 
ments, which  I  feel  bound  to  meet,  for  I  consider  the  prin- 
ciple which  he  assails  to  be  essential  to  a  thoroughly  good 
translation. 

If,  notwithstanding  our  opposite  points  of  view,  we  had 
arrived  at  the  same  results,  or,  in  other  words,  if  Mr.Earle's 
exceptions  to  his  principle  of  variety  were  coextensive  or 
nearly  coextensive  with  my  own  applications  of  ray  princi- 
ple of  uniformity,  I  should  have  felt  any  discussion  of  his 
views  to  be  superfluous;  for  then,  so  far  as  regards  any 
practical  issues,  the  difference  between  us  would  have  been 
reduced  to  a  mere  battle  of  words.  But  when  I  find  that 
Mr.  Earle  defends  such  a  rendering  as  Matt,  xviii.,  33, 
"  Shouldest  not  thou  also  have  had  comjjassion  (iXeriaai)  on 
thy  fellow-servant,  even  as  I  had  pity  (ijXirjcra)  on  thee  ?" 
I  feel  that  the  difference  between  us  is  irreconcilable.  In- 
deed, I  had  vainly  thought  that  my  illustrations  (with  one 
or  two  doubtful  exceptions)  would  carry  conviction  in  them- 
selves, and  I  confess  myself  a  little  surprised  to  find  their 
cogency  questioned  by  an  English  scholar  of  Mr.  Earle's 
eminence. 

But,  lest  I  should  be  misunderstood,  let  me  say  at  tlie 
outset  that  I  entirely  agree  with  Mr.  Earle  in  deprecating 
the  mode  of  procedure  which  would  substitute  "the  fidelity 
of  a  lexicon"  for  "the  faithfulness  of  a  translation,"  I  am 
well  aware  that  this  is  a  real  danger  to  careful  minds  trained 
in  habits  of  minute  verbal  criticism,  and  I  always  have 
raised  and  shall  raise  my  voice  against  any  changes  which 
propose  to  sacrifice  forcible  English  idiom  to  exact  con- 
formity of  expression.     For  instance,  it  would  be  mere 


PREFACE.  ix 

pedantry  to  substitute  "  Do  not  ye  rather  excel  them  ?"  for 
"Are  not  ye  much  better  than  they?"  in  Matt. vi., 26  (oux 
v^LiXq  fiaXXov  ^ia(f>epeTE  avrwv) ;  or  "  The  hour  hath  ap- 
proached," for  "  The  hour  is  at  hand,"  in  Matt,  xxvi.,  45 
{i]yyiKiv  11  lopa).  But  the  point  at  issue  seems  to  me  to  be 
wholly  different.  I  can  not  for  a  moment  regard  this  as  a 
question  of  English  idiom;  and  my  objection  to  tlie  variety 
of  rendering  which  Mr.  Earle  advocates  is  that  it  does  de- 
part from  "  the  faithfulness  of  a  translation,"  and  substi- 
tutes, not,  indeed,  the  fidelity  of  a  lexicon,  but  the  caprice 
of  a  translator. 

Mr.  Earle  says, "  The  stronghold  of  the  Greek  (I  do  not 
speak  of  Plato  and  Demosthenes,  but  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment) is  in  the  words ;  the  stronghold  of  the  English  lan- 
guage is  in  its  phraseology  and  variability."  This  is  not 
the  distinction  which  I  should  myself  give  between  the 
characteristics  of  the  two  languages.  Even  in  its  later 
stages,  the  wealth  of  particles,  the  power  of  inflection  and 
composition,  and  the  manifold  possibilities  of  order,  still 
constitute  the  peculiar  superiority  of  the  Greek  over  the 
English.  But  it  matters  little  whether  I  am  right  or  wrong 
here,  for  the  objections  to  Mr.  Earle's  practical  inferences 
are  equally  strong  in  either  case.  He  first  of  all  alleges 
examples  where  synonyms  are  coupled  in  English,  and  more 
especially  in  rendering  from  another  language,  as,  for  in- 
stance, in  Chaucer's  translation  of  Boethius's  De  Consola- 
tione  PhilosojphicB,  where  claritudo  is  rendered  "  renoun 
and  clernesse  of  linage,"  and  censor  "  domesman  or  juge ;" 
and  he  then  urges  that  as  this  method  of  double  rendering 
was  "manifestly  inadmissible  in  translating  Scripture,"  "the 
translators  fell  upon  a  device  by  which  they  allowed  some 
play  to  the  natural  bent  of  the  English  language  ;  and 
where  a  Greek  word  occurs  repeatedly  in  a  context,  they 
rather  leaned  to  a  variation  of  the  rendering." 


X  PREFACE. 

Now  it  is  one  tiling  to  give  a  double  rendering  to  a  sin- 
gle word  at  any  one  occurrence,  and  another  to  give  it  two 
different  renderings  at  two  different  occurrences  in  the  same 
context.  The  two  principles  have  nothing  in  common.  In 
the  former  case  the  translation  will  at  the  worst  be  clumsy ; 
in  the  latter  it  must  in  many  cases  be  absolutely  misleading; 
for  by  splitting  up  the  sense  of  the  word,  and  giving  one 
half  to  one  part  of  the  sentence  and  the  remaining  half  to 
the  other,  a  disconnection,  perhaps  even  a  contrast,  is  in- 
troduced, which  has  no  place  in  the  original.  If,  therefore, 
the  English  on  any  occasion  furnishes  no  exact  and  coex- 
tensi\e  equivalent  for  a  given  Greek  word  as  used  in  a 
given  context  (and  this  difficulty  must  occur  again  and 
again  in  translation  from  any  language  to  another),  it  will 
generally  be  the  less  evil  of  the  two  to  select  the  word 
which  comes  nearest  in  meaning  to  the  original,  and  to  re- 
tain this  throughout. 

But  the  examples  of  capricious  varieties  which  I  had 
chosen  to  illustrate  this  vicious  principle  of  translation,  and 
which  Mr.  Earle  is  prepared  to  defend,  can  not  in  most 
cases  plead  this  justification,  that  a  single  English  word 
does  not  adequately  represent  the  Greek.  It  would  re- 
quire far  more  minute  scholarship  than  I  possess  to  discern 
any  difference  in  meaning  between  v\6q  and  "  son."  Yet 
Mr.  Earle  stands  forward  as  the  champion  of  the  rendering 
in  Matt. XX., 20,  "Then  came  to  him  the  mother  of  Zebedee's 
children  {vidv)  with  her  sons  (ujwr)."  The  particular  ren- 
dering is  comparatively  unimportant  in  itself,  but  as  illus- 
trating the  capricious  license  of  our  translators  it  is  highly 
significant.  It  introduces  a  variety  for  no  reason  at  all ; 
and  this  variety  is  incorrect  in  itself;  for  "the  mother  of 
Zebedee's  children"  is  a  wider  expression  than  "the  mother 
of  Zebedee's  sons,"  by  which  the  evangelist  intends  only 
to  describe  her  as  the  mother  of  James  and  John,  with 


PREFACE.  xi 

whom  the  narrative  is  concerned,  and  which  neither  implies 
nor  suggests  the  existence  of  other  brothers  and  sisters. 

Again,  Mr.  Earle  is  satistied,  and  more  than  satisfied,  with 
the  rendering  of  Matt,  xviii.,  33,  "  Shouldest  not  thou  also 
liave  had  compassion  (tXe^aai)  on  thy  fellow-servant,  even 
as  I  had  pity  {tiXirjaa)  on  thee  ?"  "  If,"  he  asks,  "  we  com- 
pare our  'compassion  —  pity,'  with  the  one  Gr^ek  woid, 
what  loss  is  there  in  the  variation  ?  Is  there  not  a  eain  in 
breadth  ?"  I  answer,  a  very  serious  loss ;  and  I  do  not  al- 
low that  breadth  (or,  as  I  prefer  to  call  it,  looseness)  is  any 
gain  where  exact  correspondence  in  the  two  clauses  is  es- 
sential to  the  main  idea  of  the  passage.  What  would  be 
said  if  I  were  to  suggest  such  translations  as  "  Blessed  are 
the  pitiful  (sAeTj/xovec),  for  they  shall  obtain  mercy  (sAej)^/)- 
o-ovTot),"  in  Matt,  v.,  7,  or  "  If  ye  forgive  {h.(^r\Ti)  not  men 
their  trespasses  {irapairTojinaTa),  neither  will  your  heavenly 
Father  remit  (a^/jaft)  your  transgressions  (7ra/oa7rrw/iara)," 
in  Matt,  vi.,  15,  or  "  Be  ye  therefore  faultless  (reXeioi)  as 
your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is  perfect  (rfXEtoc),"  in  Matt, 
v.,  48  ?  I  do  not  doubt  that  if  these  passages  had  been  so 
translated  in  our  Anthorized  Version,  the  variations  would 
have  found  admirers ;  but  as  it  is,  who  will  question  the 
vast  superiority  of  the  existing  renderings,  where  the  repe- 
tition of  the  English  word  corresponds  to  the  repetition  of 
the  Greek  ?  In  all  these  passages  the  thought  is  one  and  the 
same,  that  the  ideal  of  human  conduct  is  the  exact  copying 
of  the  divine.  In  the  other  examples  quoted  our  translators 
have  preserved  this  thought  unimpaired  by  repeating  the 
same  word,  but  in  Matt,  xviii.,  33  it  is  marred  by  the  double 
rendering  "  compassion,  pity ;"  while  the  idea  of  ^'■fellow- 
feeling,"  which  is  implied  in  "  compassion,"  and  in  which 
the  chief  fault  lies,  has  no  place  in  the  original  W^uv. 

Again,  Mr.  Earle  defends  the  double  rendering  of  Siaipt- 
aeig  in  1  Cor.  xii.,  4, "  There  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the 


xii  PREFACE. 

same  Spirit ;  and  there  are  differences  of  administrations, 
but  the  same  Lord ;  and  there  are  diversities  of  operations, 
but  it  is  the  same  God,  etc.,"  and  seems  even  to  regret  the 
abandonment  of  Tjndale's  triple  rendering  diversities,  dif- 
ferences, divers  manners.  What  again,  I  ask,  would  be  said 
if  I  were  to  propose  to  translate  2  Cor.  xi.,  26,  "  In  perils  of 
waters,  in  dangers  fi'om  robbers,  in  perils  by  mine  own 
countrymen,  in  dangers  from  the  heathen,  in  hazards  in  the 
city,  in  hazards  in  the  wilderness,  etc.,"  thus  gaining  breadth 
by  varying  the  rendering  of  Kiv^vvoiq\  Happily,  conserva- 
tive feeling  in  this  instance  is  enlisted  on  the  right  side, 
and  it  may  be  presumed  that  no  change  will  be  desired. 
But,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  the  two  cases  are  exactly  analo- 
gous ;  the  effect  of  the  sentence  in  each  case  depending  on 
the  maintenance  of  the  same  word,  which  arrests  the  ear, 
and  produces  its  effect  by  repetition,  like  the  tolling  of  a 
bell  or  the  stroke  on  an  anvil.  Indeed,  I  must  conclude 
that  my  mind  is  differently  constituted  from  Mr.  Earle's 
when  I  find  him  defending  the  translation  of  James  ii.,  2, 
3,  "  If  there  come  unto  your  assembly  a  man  with  a  gold 
ring  in  goodly  ajpparel  {iv  iadnn  \afxTrpa),  and  there  come 
in  also  a  poor  man  in  vile  raiment  {laBriTi),  and  ye  have  re- 
spect unto  him  that  weareth  the  gay  clothing  (r^jv  laOi^Ta 
Trjv  Xafxirpav),  etc."  Not  only  do  I  regard  the  variation 
here  as  highly  artificial  (a  sufficient  condemnation  in  itself), 
but  it  seems  to  me  to  dissipate  the  force  of  the  passage, 
and  therefore  I  am  prepared  to  submit  to  the  "  cruel  im- 
poverishment" by  which  the  English  would  be  made  to  con- 
form to  the  simplicity  of  the  Greek.  Kor  again  am  I  able 
to  see  why,  in  Rev.  xvii.,  6,  IQavfiaaa  Bavfxa  fiiya,  "  I  won- 
dered  with  great  admiration^''  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  nat- 
ural rendering, "  I  wondered  with  great  wonder^''  as  in  1 
Thess.  iii.,  9,  hn  Traarri  ry  x^P^  V  yaipofitv  St  vixag  is  trans- 
lated "  for  all  the  joy  wherewith  we  joy  for  your  sakes," 


PREFACE.  xiii 

and  not  "for  all  the  gladness^  In  this  passage  from  the 
Kevelation  the  words  immediately  following  (ver.  7)  run  in 
the  English  Version,  "And  the  angel  said  unto  me, Where- 
fore didst  thou  marvel  {tBavfxaaaqyC''  where,  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  third  rendering,  a  still  further  injury  is  inflicted  on 
the  compactness  of  the  passage. 

So  far  with  regard  to  the  sense.  But  Mr.  Earle  nrges 
that  the  sound  must  be  consulted ;  that  the  ear,  for  instance, 
requires  the  variations  cotnjpassion,  pity,  in  Matt,  xviii,,  33, 
and  loonder,  admiration  (he  omits  to  notice  marvel)  in  Rev. 
xvii.,  6, 7 ;  that  generally  there  is  this  "  broad  modulatory 
distinction  between  the  ancient  tongues  and  the  great  mod- 
ern languages  of  Western  Europe,  that  the  former  could 
tolerate  reverberation  to  a  degree  which  is  intolerable  to 
the  latter ;"  and  that  "  perhaps  there  is  not  one  of  them 
that  is  more  sensitive  in  this  respect  than  the  English." 

In  reply  to  this,  I  will  ask  my  readei's  whether  there  is 
any  thing  unpleasant  to  the  ear  in  the  frequent  repetition 
of  "  perils"  in  the  passage  already  quoted,  2  Cor.  xi.,  26,  or 
of  "  blessed"  in  the  beatitudes.  Matt,  v.,  3-11.  But  this  last 
reference  suggests  an  application  of  the  experimental  test 
on  a  larger  scale.  I  should  find  it  difficult  (and  I  venture 
to  hope  that  Mr.  Earle  will  agree  with  me  here)  to  point  to 
any  three  continuous  chapters  in  the  New  Testament  which 
are  at  once  so  vigorously  and  faithfully  rendered,  and  in 
which  the  rhythm  and  sound  so  entirely  satisfy  the  ear,  as 
those  which  make  up  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Indeed, 
this  portion  of  our  Authorized  Version  deserves  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  very  model  of  successful  translation.  What, 
then,  are  the  facts?  In  the  original  the  reverberation  is 
sustained  throuo-hout,  beginning'  with  the  beatitudes  and 
ending  with  tlie  closing  parable,  so  that  there  are  not  many 
verses  without  an  instance,  while  some  contain  two  or  three. 
Happily,  in  our  Authorized  Version,  this  characteristic  is 


xiv  PREFACE. 

faithfully  reproduced.  The  temptation  to  capricious  va- 
riety to  which  our  translators  elsewhere  give  way  is  here 
foregone;  and,  indeed,  the  whole  number  of  the  repetitions 
in  the  English  is  slightly  greater  than  in  the  Greek;  for 
though,  either  from  inadvertence  or  from  the  exigencies  of 
translation^  one  is  dropped  here  and  there  (e.  g.,  Xafitrti,  \a/x- 
4'aT(o,  giveth  light,  shiyie,  v.,  15, 16  ;  hring,  offer,  irpoatftipr^Q, 
Trp6(T<f)ip(,  v.,  23,  24 ;  oTroAuay,  airoXiXv/jitviiv,  jntt  airay,  di- 
vorced, v.,  31, 32 ;  tTTiopKi'iafig,  opKovc,fors^c€ar,  oaths,  v.,  33 ; 
a<itaviZ,ov(ji,  (pavCxji,  difjigure,  ajjpear,  \i.,lG:  Oi)(Tavpil^iTi, 
bricfavpovc,  Jay  up,  treafsiu'cs,  vi.,  19 ;  TrtpuftaXiTo,  TrtptfiaXut- 
fiiOa,  arrayed,  clothed,  vi.,  29,  31 ;  /utVpo),  piTpdn,  measure, 
mete  (?),  vii.,  2  ;  <.I»coco/j»)<t£1',  oikiuv,  luilt,  house,  vii.,  2-4),  yet, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  balance  is  more  than  redressed  by 
the  same  rendering  of  different  words  in  other  i)arts  (e.g., 
light,  Kaiovaiv,  Xa/nint,  ^<I»c,v.,14-16  ',  fulfill,  irXrfpw(Tai,ytvri- 
ra<,  v.,  17, 18;  righteousness  repeated,  though  ciKato<Tvvif  oc- 
curs only  once  in  the  original,  v.,  20 ;  v:hosoei:er,  iraq  6,  og 
av,  v.,  22 ;  divorcement,  divorced,  inrotrraaiov,  airoXiXvfiivnv, 
v.,  31,  32;  forswear,  swear,  iiriopKt'iaitc,  opoaai,  v.,  33,  34; 
reward, fiiadov,  airo^wmt,  vi.,  2, 4, 5,  G,  16, 18 ;  streets,  pv/xatg, 
7rXaTiiu)v,  vi.,  2,  5  ;  day,  daily,  ai'ifupov,  iiriovaiov,  vi.,  11 ; 
light,  Xvxvog,  <pojT(iv6v,  ^wc,  vi.,  22, 23 ;  raiment,  arrayed, 
ivdvparoc,  TripuftaXiTo,  vi.,  28,  29  ;  clothe,  clothed,  itpifnivvv' 
aiv,  iripiftaXuifitOa,  vi.,  30,  31  ;  good,  ayadov,  KoXovg,  vii.,  17, 
18 ;  beat,  irpoaiirtaav,  irpoaiKOxf^av,  vii.,  25, 27).  If  my  read- 
ers are  of  opinion  that  the  general  method  adopted  by  our 
translators  in  tlie  Sermon  on  the  Mount  is  faulty,  and  that 
these  three  chapters  would  Iiave  gained  by  greater  breadth 
and  variety,  I  have  nothing  more  to  say ;  but  if  they  are 
satisfied  with  this  method,  then  they  have  conceded  every 
tiling  for  which  I  am  arguing.* 

•  I  confess  myself  quite  unable  to  follow  Mr.  Earle's  logic  when  lie  criti- 
cises w  hat  I  had  said  of  the  Kheims  Version.     My  words  are  (p.  44), "  Of 


PREFACE.  XV 

But  Mr.  Earle  proceeds:  ''There  is  no  end  to  the  curi- 
osities of  scholarship,  aud  the  perilous  minutiae  that  such  a 
principle  may  lead  to,  if  it  is  persevered  in  ;*'  and  by  way  of 
illustration  he  adds, ''  Dr.  Lightf oot  seems  to  ignore  what  I 
should  have  regarded  as  an  obvious  fact,  that  it  is  hardly 
possible  in  modern  English  to  make  a  play  upon  words 
compatible  with  elevation  of  style.  It  was  compatible  with 
solemnity  in  Hebrew,  and  also  in  the  Hebrew -tinctured 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  but  in^nglish  it  is  not.  Ex- 
plain it  as  you  may,  the  fact  is  palpable.  Does  it  not  tax 
all  our  esteem  for  Shakspeare  to  put  up  with  many  a  pas- 
sage of  which  in  any  other  author  we  should  not  hesitate 
to  say  that  it  was  deformed  and  debased  by  a  jingle  of 
word-sounds  V 

To  this  I  answer  fearlessly  that  I  certainly  do  desire  to 
see  the  play  of  words  retained  in  the  English  Version, 
wherever  it  can  be  done  without  forcing  the  English.  I 
believe  that  our  translators  acted  rightly  when  they  ren- 
dered \pwfiivoi,  Kara\jowju£ro;,  by  nse,  al/u^e,m  1  Cor. yii., 
31  ;  I  believe  that  they  were  only  wrong  in  translating 
k-ararojuj),  TTipiToinii,  concision,  circximci&wn,  in  Phil,  iii.,  2, 3, 
because  the  former  is  hardly  a  recognized  English  word, 
and  would  not  be  generally  understood.  I  freely  confess 
that  in  many  cases,  perhaps  in  most  cases,  the  thing  can  not 

all  the  English  versions,  the  Rhemish  alone  has  paid  attention  to  this  point, 
and  so  far  compares  advantageously  with  the  rest,  to  -which,  in  most  other  re- 
spects, it  is  confessedly  inferior."  On  this  he  remarks:  "It  is  certainly  un- 
fortunate for  our  author's  position  that,  by  his  own  showing,  the  version  which 
has  kept  to  his  principle  should  nevertheless  be  confessedly  inferior  in  most 
other  respects,  including,  as  I  apprehend,  the  highest  respects  that  can  affect 
our  judgment  of  a  version  of  Holy  Scripture.  To  put  this  admission  with 
the  clearness  due  to  its  importance :  the  Rheims  Version  is  the  best  in  that 
it  has  observed  our  author's  principle,  but  as  a  rendering  of  Scripture  it  is  the 
worst."  Why  unfortunate  ?  Does  experience  suggest  that  the  man  or  the 
book  that  is  right  on  five  points  out  of  ax,  must  be  right  on  the  sixth  point 
also  ?  Does  it  not  rather  lead  us  to  expect  some  element  of  right  in  the 
most  wrong,  and  some  element  cif  wrong  in  the  most  right  ? 

E 


xvi  PREFACE. 

be  done ;  but  I  am  sorrj  for  it.'"''  I  can  not  for  a  moment 
acquiesce  in  Mr.  Earle's  opinion  that  it  is  incompatible  with  • 
"solemnity,"  with  "  elevation  of  style."  Above  all,  I  repu- 
diate the  notion,  which  seems  to  underlie  whole  paragraphs 
of  Mr.  Earle's  critique,  that  it  is  the  business  of  a  translator, 
when  he  is  dealing  with  the  Bible,  to  improve  the  style  of 
his  author,  having  before  my  eyes  the  warning  examples  of 
the  past,  and  believing  that  all  such  attempts  will  end  in 
discomfiture.f     Is  it  not  one  great  merit  of  our  English 

*  On  my  suggestion  that  in  2  Thess.  iii.,  11,  the  play  on  ipyaZofikvovQ, 
TrepitpyaZ.ofiiv'ovc,  might  be  preserved  by  the  words  bxisiness,  busy-bodies,  Mr. 
Earle  remarks:  "As  a  matter  of  history,  the  word  business  has  no  radical 
connection  with  busy :  it  is  merely  a  disguised  form  of  the  French  besognes. 
This  is,  however,  a  secondary  matter,  because,  if  the  word-play  be  desirable 
as  a  matter  of  English  taste,  these  words  would  answer  the  purpose  just  as 
well  as  if  their  affinity  were  quite  established."  Without  hazarding  any 
opinion  on  a  question  on  which  Mr.  Earle  is  so  much  more  competent  to 
speak  than  myself, I  would  venture  to  remark:  (1.)  That  the  direct  deriva- 
tion of  business  from  busy  is  maintained  by  no  less  an  authority  than  Jacob 
Grimm,  Deutsche  Grammatik,  ii.,  p.  237  seq.  ;  (2.)  That  other  authorities 
maintain  (whether  rightly  or  wrongly  I  do  not  venture  to  say)  the  radical 
connection  of  the  Teutonic  words  busy  (Engl.),  bezicj  (Dutch),  with  the  Ro- 
mance words  besogne,  bisogna;  and  (3.)  That  this  very  play  of  words  occurs 
in  the  earliest  English  translations  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Wicliffite  Versions, 
in  1  Cor.  vii.,  32, "  I  wole  you  for  to  be  withoute  bisynesse  (aiiepifivovc,Yu\g. 
sine  sollicitudine).  Sothli  he  that  is  withoute  wyf  is  bysy  (fiipifiv^,Y\i\g.  sol- 
licitus  est)  what  thingis  ben  of  the  Lord." 

Mr.  Earle  remarks  that  in  2  Thess.  iii.,  II,  "Even  the  Hheims  Version 
keeps  clear  of  this  (the  play  of  words)  :  it  has  'working  nothing,  but  curiously 
meddling.'"  The  fiict  is,  that  after  its  wont  it  has  translated  the  Vulgate, 
"Nihil  operantes  sed  curiose  agentes,"  in  which  this  characteristic  of  the 
original  has  disappeared. 

This  paronomasia  is  not  confined  to  St.Paiil,  but  occurs  also  in  Aristides, 
ii.,  p.  418,  rauTa  I'ipyaffrai  fxtv  ....  inpiiipyaaTai  de  /<ij^a/twc,  just  as  the 
apostle's  (ppovHv,  auxppovHv  (Rom.  xii.,  3)  has  a  parallel  in  a  passage  quoted 
by  Stobajus  as  from  Charondas,  Floril.,  xliv.,  40,  ■KpooTcoitiaBw  Si.  iKaaroQ  tHjv 
TToXtTuiv  au)(ppovitv  fiaWov  J)  <ppovnv. 

+  The  anxiety  to  impart  dignity  to  the  language  of  the  apostles  and  evan- 
gelists reaches  a  climax  in  A  Liberal  Translation  of  the  New  Testament, 
being  an  attempt  to  translate  the  Sacred  Writings  with  the  same  Freedom, 
Spirit,  and  Elegance  with  which  other  English  Translations  from  the  Greek 
Classics  have  lately  been  executed:  by  E.  Harwood,  London,  1768.  In  this 
strange  production  the  following  is  a  sample  of  St. Luke's  narrative  (xi.,  40): 
"Absurd  and  preposterous  conduct!     Did  not  the  Great  Being,  who  made 


PREFACE. 


XVll 


Version,  regarded  as  a  literary  work,  that  it  has  naturalized 
in  our  language  the  magnificent  Hebraisms  of  the  original  ? 
But  the  case  before  us  is  even  stronger  than  this.  The 
paronomasia  is  a  characteristic  of  St.  Paul's  style,  and 
should  be  reproduced  (so  far  as  the  genius  of  the  English 
language  permits)  like  any  other  characteristic.  That  it  is 
admissible,  the  example  of  Shakspeare  which  Mr.  Earle  ad- 
duces, and  that  of  Tennyson,  whose  "  name  and  fame"  he 
himself  has  already  quoted,  and  who  abounds  in  similar  ex- 
amples of  alliteration  and  assonance,  not  to  mention  other 
standard  writers  whether  of  the  Elizabethan  or  of  the  Vic- 
torian era,  are  sufficient  evidence.  I  am  not  concerned  to 
defend  Shakspeare's  literary  reputation,  which  may  be  left 
to  itself ;  and  I  have  certainly  no  wish  to  maintain  that  he 
was  entirely  free  from  the  affectations  of  his  age ;  but  I  am 
unfeignedly  surprised  to  find  plays  on  words  condemned 
wholesale,  as  incompatible  with  elevation  of  style.     Under 

the  external  form,  create  the  internal  intellectual  powers,  and  will  he  not  be 
more  solicitous  for  the  purity  of  the  mind  than  for  the  showy  elegance  of  the 
body  ?"  and  this  again  of  St.  John's  (iii.,  32)  :  "But  though  this  exalted  per- 
sonage freely  publishes  and  solemnly  attests  those  heavenly  doctrines,  etc." 
The  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  in  the  former  begins  (xv.,  11),  "A  gentleman 
of  splendid  fomily  and  opulent  fortune  had  two  sons."  Even  Dr.  Johnson 
himself,  the  great  master  of  grandiloquent  English,  could  not  tolerate  this 
book.  "Returning  through  the  house,"  we  are  told,  "he  stepped  into  a 
small  study  or  book-room.  The  first  book  he  laid  his  hands  upon  was  Har- 
wood's  Liberal  Translation  of  the  New  Testament.  The  passage  which  first 
caught  his  eye  was  that  sublime  apostrophe  in  St.  John  upon  the  raising  of 
Lazarus,  Jesus  vjept,  which  Harwood  had  conceitedly  rendered,  And  Jesus., 
the  Saviour  of  the  world,  burst  into  a  flood  of  tears.  He  contemptuously  threw 
the  book  aside,  exclaiming  '  Puppy !' "  (Appendix  to  Boswell's  Life  of  John- 
son, in  Croker's  edition,  London,  1866,  p.  830.)  Johnson's  biographer,  Bos- 
well,  speaks  of  it  as  "a  fantastical  translation  of  the  New  Testament  in  mod- 
ern phrase"  (p.  506).  See  also  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold's  opinion  (quoted  below, 
p.  159)  on  a  very  similar  attempt  at  a  revised  version  by  Franklin.  I  am 
quite  sure  that  Mr.  Earle's  suffrage  would  be  on  the  same  side ;  but  when  he 
asks  that  the  distinctive  features  of  the  sacred  writers  may  be  sacrificed  to 
"  elevation  of  style,"  and  pleads  that  the  language  may  be  made  more  "full- 
bodied"  to  suit  "  the  public  taste"  than  it  is  in  the  original,  is  he  not  leading 
us,  though  by  a  different  road,  to  the  edge  of  the  very  same  precipice  ? 


xviii  PREFACE. 

certain  circumstances,  paronomasia,  alliteration,  and  the 
like,  are  not  only  very  natural,  but,  as  indicating  intensity 
of  feeling,  may  produce  even  a  tragic  effect.  With  the  ap- 
preciation of  a  great  genius,  Shakspeare  himself  has  ex- 
plained and  justified  their  use  under  such  circumstances. 
When  John  of  Gaunt,  in  his  last  illness,  is  visited  by  Kich- 
ard,  and,  in  reply  to  the  king's  inquiry,  keeps  harping  on 
his  name, 

"Old  Gaunt  indeed,  and  gaunt  in  being  old," 

the  king  asks, 

"Can  sick  men  play  so  nicely  with  their  names?" 

The  old  man's  answer  is, 

"Ko  ;  misery  makes  sport  to  mock  itself.''^ 

The  very  intensity  of  his  grief  seeks  relief  in  this  way.* 

Again,  who  will  question  the  propriety  of  the  play  on 
words  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  outburst  of  anger  against  Glou- 
cester after  the  murder  of  her  children? 

"  Cousins,  indeed ;  and  by  their  uncle  cozen'd 
Of  comfort,  kingdom,  kindred,  freedom,  life." 

The  very  fierceness  of  her  wrath  seeks  expression  in  the 
iteration  of  the  same  sounds. 

And  in  cases  whei-e  no  intensity  of  passion  exists,  there 
may  be  some  other  determining  motive.  Thus  we  find  a 
tendency  in  all  languages  to  repetition  of  sound  where  a 
didactic  purpose  is  served.  Of  this  motive,  the  fondness 
for  rhyme,  alliteration,  and  the  like,  in  the  familiar  prov- 
erbs of  all  languages,  affords  ample  illustration,  as  in  Waste 
not^  leant  not;  Forewarned,  forearmed ;  3fan  j>ro2)oses, 
God  disposes ;  Compendia  dispendia;  7raO{]}iaTa  jxaQ^fiara. 
To  this  category  we  may  assign  St. Paul's  firi  v-mp^povuv 
Trap  o  Sti  <j>povtiv,  aWa  (ppovilv  hq  to  (ruxppovilv  (Eom.  xii., 
3).     Indeed,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  show  that  in  every 

*  Similarly  Cicero,  speaking  of  the  Sicilians  playing  on  the  name  of  Verres, 
says  (Fe?T.,  Act  ii.,  1,  46),  "etiam  ridicuU  inveniebantur  ex  dolore." 


PREFACE.  xix 

instance  the  apostle  had  some  reason  for  employing  this 
figure,  and  that  he  did  not  use  it  as  a  mere  rhetorical  play- 
thing. We  may  find  ourselves  imable,  in  any  individual 
case,  to  reproduce  the  same  effect  in  English,  and  thus  may 
be  forced  to  abandon  the  attempt  in  despair;  but  not  the 
less  earnestly  shall  we  protest  against  the  principle  that  the 
genius  of  our  language  requires  ns  to  abstain  from  the  at- 
tempt under  any  circumstances,  and  that  a  form  of  speech 
which  is  natural  in  itself  and  common  to  all  languages  must 
be  sacrificed  to  some  fancied  ideal  of  an  elevated  style. 

Trinity  College,  St.  John's  Day,  1871. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  St.  Jerome's  Eevision  of  the  Latin  Bible 23 

II.  Authorized  Version  of  the  English  Bible 29 

III.  Lessons  suggested  by  these  Historical  Parallels 31 

IV,  Necessity  for  a  fresh  Revision  of  the  Authorized  Version...     31 

§  1.  False  Readings 36 

§  2.  Artificial  distinctions  created 46 

§  3.  Real  distinctions  obliterated Go 

§  4.  Faults  of  Grajijiar 80 

§  5.  Faults  of  Lexicography 118 

§  6.  Treatment  of  Proper  Najies,  Official  Titles,  etc 127 

§  7.  ARCHAisMS,   Defects    in    the    English,   Errors    of    the 

Press,  etc 144 

V.  Prospects  of  the  New  RE\^SION 157 

Appendix  on  the  avords  iirtovaioc,  Trepiovaioc 163 

Int)ices 185 


A  FRESH  REVISION 


ENGLISH  NEAV  TESTAMENT. 


I. 

MoEE  than  two  centuries  had  elapsed  since  the  first  Latin 
Version  of  the  Scriptures  was  made,  when  the  variations  and 
errors  of  the  Latin  Bible  began  to  attract  the  attention  of 
students  and  to  call  for  revision.  It  happened  iDrovidentially 
that,  at  the  A'ery  moment  when  the  need  was  felt,  the  right 
man  was  forthcoming.  In  the  first  fifteen  centuries  of  her 
existence  the  Western  Church  produced  no  Biblical  scholar 
who  could  compare  -with  St.  Jerome  in  competence  for  so 
great  a  task.  At  the  suggestion  of  his  ecclesiastical  sujjerior, 
Damasus,  bishop  of  Rome,  he  undertook  this  work,  for  Avhich 
many  years  of  self-denying  labor  had  eminently  fitted  him. 

It  is  no  part  of  my  design  to  give  a  detailed  account  of 
this  undertaking.  I  wish  only  to  remark,  that  when  Jerome 
applied  himself  to  his  task,  he  foresaw  that  he  should  exjjose 
himself  to  violent  attacks,  and  that  this  anticij^ation  was  not 
disappointed  by  the  result.  "  Who,"  he  asks,  in  his  Preface 
to  the  Gospels,  the  first  portion  of  the  work  which  he  com- 
pleted, "  who,  whether  learned  or  unlearned,  when  he  takes 
up  the  volume,  and  finds  that  what  he  reads  differs  from  the 
flavor  he  has  once  tasted,  will  not  immediately  raise  his  voice 
and  pronounce  me  guilty  of  forgery  and  sacrilege  for  daring 
to  add,  to  change,  to  correct  any  thing  in  the  ancient  books?"* 
*  Op. ,  X. ,  060  (ed.  Vallarsi). 


24       LIQHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  X.  TEST. 

Again  and  again  be  defends  himself  against  his  antagonists. 
His  temper,  natnvally  irritable,  was  provoked  beyond  measure 
by  these  undeserved  attacks,  and  betrayed  him  into  language 
which  I  shall  not  attempt  to  defend.  Thus  writing  to  Mar- 
cella,*  he  mentions  certain  "poor  creatures  (homunculos)  who 
studiously  calumniate  him  for  attempting  to  correct  some 
passages  in  the  Gospels  against  the  authority  of  the  ancients 
and  the  opinion  of  the  whole  world."  "I  could  afford  to  de- 
spise them,"  he  says,  "  if  I  stood  upon  my  rights,  for  a  lyre  is 
played  in  vain  to  an  ass."  "If  they  do  not  like  the  water 
from  the  purest  fountain-head,  let  them  drink  of  the  muddy 
streams."  And  after  more  to  the  same  effect,  he  returns 
again  at  the  close  of  the  letter  to  these  "  two-legged  donkeys 
(bipedes  asellos),"  exclaiming,  "Let  them  read,  Hejoicing  in 
-f.  hope,  serving  the  time;  let  us  read.  Rejoicing  in  hope,  serving 
the  Lord ;\  let  them  consider  that  an  accusation  ought  under 
no  circumstances  to  be  received  against  an  elder ;  let  us  read, 
Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accusation  but  before  tico  or 
three  witnesses  ;  them  that  sin  rebuJce.\  Let  them  be  satisfied 
Vi'iih,  It  is  a  human  saying,  and  worthy  of  all  acceptation; 
let  us  err  with  the  Greeks,  that  is,  with  the  apostle  who  spoke 
in  Greek,  It  is  a  faithfid  saying,  and  xcorthy  of  all  accepta- 
tion.^^^  And  elsewhere,  referring  to  these  same  detractors, 
he  writes,  with  a  severity  which  was  not  undeserved,  "Let 
them  read  first  and  despise  afterward,  lest  they  appear  to 
condemn  works  of  which  they  know  nothing,  not  from  delib- 
erate judgment,  but  from  the  prejudice  ofhatred."||  "Thus 
much  I  say  in  reply  to  my  traducers,  who  snap  at  me  like 
dogs,  maligning  me  in  public  and  reading  me  in  a  corner,  at 
once  my  accusers  and  my  defenders,  seeing  that  they  approve 
in  others  what  they  disapprove  in  me."^ 

If  these  attacks  had  been  confined  to  personal  enemies  like 

*  Epist.,  28  (i.,  p.  133).  t  The  reading  Kaipi^  for  Kvpii^,  Rom.  xii.,  11. 

X  The  omission  of  the  clause  d  hi]  iiri  dvo  »;  rpiwv  [xaprvpwv,  1  Tim.  v.,  19. 
§  The  reading  avOpuinvoQ  for  ttjotoc,  1  Tim.  iii.,  1. 
II  0/>.,ix.,G84.  t  Op.,  ix.,  U08. 


ST.  JEROJIE'S  BEVISIOX  OF  THE  LATIN  BIBLE.  25 

Rufinus,*  who  were  only  retaliating  uijon  Jerome  the  harsh 
treatment  which  they  had  received  at  his  hands,  his  com- 
plaints would  not  have  excited  much  sympathy.  But  even 
friends  looked  coldly  or  suspiciously  on  his  noble  work.  His 
admirer,  the  great  Augustine  himself,  wrote  to  deprecate  an 
undertaking  which  might  be  followed  by  such  serious  results. 
He  illustrated  his  fears  by  reference  to  the  well-known  inci- 
dent to  which  Jerome's  version  of  the  Book  of  Jonah  had 
given  occasion,  as  a  sample  of  the  consequences  that  might 
be  expected  to  ensue.  A  certain  bishop  had  nearly  lost  liis 
flock  by  venturing  to  substitute  Jerome's  rendering  "hedera" 
for  "  cucurbita,"  and  could  only  win  them  back  again  by  re- 
instating the  old  version  which  he  had  abandoned.  They 
would  not  tolerate  a  change  in  an  expression  "  which  had 
been  fixed  by  time  in  the  feelings  and  memory  of  all,  and  had 
been  repeated  through  so  many  ages  in  succession."! 

Of  the  changes  which  Jerome  introduced  into  the  text  of 
the  New  Testament,  the  passage  quoted  above  affords  suffi- 
cient illustration.  In  the  Old  Testament  a  more  arduous  task 
awaited  him.  The  Latin  Version  which  his  labors  were  des- 
tined to  supersede  had  been  made  from  the  Septuagint.  He 
himself  undertook  to  revise  the  text  in  conformity  with  the 
original  Hebrew.  It  will  apjiear  strange  to  our  own  age  that 
this  was  the  chief  ground  of  accusation  against  him.  All  the 
Greek  and  Latin  churches,  it  was  urged,  had  hitherto  used 
one  and  the  same  Bible ;  but  this  bond  of  union  would  be 
dissolved  by  a  new  version  made  from  a  different  text.  Thus 
the  utmost  confusion  would  ensue.  Moreover,  what  injury 
might  not  be  done  to  the  faith  of  the  weaker  brethren  by 
casting  doubt  on  the  state  of  the  sacred  text  ?  What  wounds 
might  not  be  inflicted  on  the  pious  sentiments  of  the  believer 
by  laying  sacrilegious  hands  on  language  hallowed  by  long 
time  and  association  ? 

*  See  Hieron..  0/?., ii., 660,  where  Rufiniis  exclaims,  "Istud  commissumdic 
quomodo  emendabitur  ?  immo,  nefas  quomodo  expiabitur  ?"  with  more  to  the 
same  effect.  t  Hieron. ,  Epist. ,  104  (i. ,  636  seq. ). 


26      LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

But,  iiidejjendently  of  the  dangerous  consequences  which 
might  be  exiDected,  no  -words  were  too  strong  to  condemn 
the  arrogance  and  iDresumption  of  one  who  thus  ventured  to 
set  aside  the  sacred  text  as  it  had  been  used  by  all  branches 
and  in  all  ages  of  the  Church  from  the  beginning.  To  this 
cruel  taunt  Jerome  replied  nobly :  "  I  do  not  condemn,  I  do 
not  blame  the  Seventy,  but  I  confidently  prefer  the  apostles 
to  them  all."*  "  I  beseech  you,  reader,  do  not  regard  my  la- 
bors as  throwing  blame  on  the  ancients.  Each  man  ofiers 
what  he  can  for  the  tabernacle  of  God.f  Some,  gold,  and 
silver,  and  precious  stones ;  others,  fine  linen,  and  purple,  and 
scarlet,  and  blue:  I  shall  hold  myself  happy  if  I  have  pfiered 
skins  and  goats'  hair.  And  yet  the  apostle  considers  that  the 
more  despised  members  are  more  necessary  (1  Cor.  xii.,22)."| 

Moreover,  there  was  a  very  exaggerated  estimate  of  the 
amount  of  change  which  his  revision  would  introduce.  Thus 
Augustine,  when  endeavoring  to  deter  him,  speaks  of  his  new 
trcmslation  ;  Jerome,  in  reply,  tacitly  corrects  his  illustrious 
correspondent,  and  calls  the  work  a  rcmsion.%  And  through- 
out he  holds  the  same  guarded  language :  he  protests  that  he 
has  no  desire  to  introduce  change  for  the  mere  sake  of  change, 
and  that  only  such  alterations  will  be  made  as  strict  fidelity 
to  the  original  demands.  Ilis  object  is  solely  to  place  the 
Ilehraica  Veritas  before  his  readers  in  the  vernacular  tongue, 
and  to  this  object  he  is  steadfast. 

In  executing  this  great  work,  Jerome  was  in  constant  com- 
munication with  Jewish  rabbis,  who  were  his  Hebrew  teach- 
ers, and  to  whom  he  was  much  indebted  in  many  Avays.  How 
great  a  gain  this  assistance  was  to  his  revision,  and  how  large- 
ly after  ages  have  profited  by  the  knowledge  thus  brought  to 
bear  on  the  sacred  text,  I  need  hardly  say.  We  may  suspect 
(though  no  direct  notice  on  this  point  is  preserved)  that  with 

*  Op. ,  ix. ,  6.  t  Exod.  XXV. ,  2  seq.  J  Op. ,  ix. ,  4G0. 

§  See  Hieron.,  J5^!s<.,104:, i.,637,  for  Augustine's  letter  ("Evangelium  ex 
Grajco  interpretatus  es"),  and  ^«'s^,  112,  L,  753,  for  Jerome's  reply  ("in 
Novi  Testamenti  emendatione").  See  Dr.Westcott,  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible,  s.v.  Vulgate,  ii.,  p.  169G. 


ST.  JER  OKIE'S  RE  VISION  OF  THE  LA  TIN  BIBLE.  2  7 

bis  contemporaries  this  fact  was  prominent  among  the  counts 
of  the  indictment  against  him.  At  least  it  is  certain  that 
they  set  their  faces  against  his  substitution  of  the  Hebrew 
text  for  the  Septuagint  Version  on  the  ground  that  the  for- 
mer had  been  tampered  with  by  the  malignity  and  obduracy 
of  the  Jews.  But,  if  this  suspicion  wrongs  them,  and  they 
did  not  object  to  his  availing  himself  of  such  extraneous  aid, 
then  they  evinced  greater  liberality  than  has  always  been 
shown  by  the  opponents  of  revision  in  later  years. 

Happily  Jerome  felt  strong  in  the  power  of  truth,  and  could 
resist  alike  the  importunity  of  friends  and  the  assaults  of  foes. 
His  sole  object  was  to  place  before  the  Latin-speaking  church- 
es the  most  faithful  representation  of  the  actual  words  of  the 
sacred  text,  and  the  consciousness  of  this  great  purjDose  nerved 
him  with  a  strength  beyond  himself  The  character  of  this 
father  will  not  kindle  any  deep  affection  or  respect.  We  are 
repelled  by  his  coarseness  and  want  of  refinement,  by  his  as- 
perity of  temper,  by  his  vanity  and  self-assertion.  We  look 
in  vain  for  that  transparent  simplicity  Avhich  is  the  true  foun- 
dation of  the  highest  saintliness.  But  in  this  instance  the 
nobler  instincts  of  the  Biblical  scholar  triumphed  over  the 
baser  passions  of  the  man ;  and  in  his  lifelong  devotion  to 
this  one  object  of  placing  the  Bible  in  its  integrity  before  the 
Western  Church,  his  character  rises  to  true  sublimity.  "I 
beseech  you,"  he  writes,  "  pour  out  your  j^rayers  to  the  Lord 
for  me,  that  so  long  as  I  am  in  this  poor  body  I  may  Avrite 
something  acceptable  to  you,  useful  to  the  Church,  and  wor- 
thy of  after  ages.  Lideed,  I  am  not  moved  overmuch  by  the 
judgments  of  living  men :  they  err  on  the  one  side  or  on  the 
other  through  affection  or  through  hatred."*  "My  voice," 
he  says  elsewhere,  "shall  never  be  silent,  Christ  helping  me. 
Though  my  tongue  be  cut  off,  it  shall  still  stammer.  Let 
those  read  who  will ;  let  those  who  will  not,  reject."f  And, 
inspired  Avith  a  true  scholar's  sense  of  the  dignity  of  consci- 
entious work  for  its  own  sake,  irrespective  of  any  striking 

*  Op.,ix.,136t.  tld.ib.,1526. 


28      LIOHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

results,  after  mentioning  the  pains  which  it  has  cost  him  to 
unravel  the  entanglement  of  names  in  the  Books  of  Chroni- 
cles, he  recalls  a  famous  word  of  encouragement  addressed 
of  old  by  Antigenidas  the  flute-player  to  his  pupil  Ismenias, 
whose  skill  had  failed  to  catch  the  popular  fancy:  "Play  to 
me  and  to  the  Muses."  So  Jerome  describes  his  own  set  pur- 
pose :  "  Like  Ismenias,  I  play  to  myself  and  to  mine,  if  the 
ears  of  the  rest  are  deaf"* 

Thus  far  I  have  dwelt  on  the  opposition  which  Jerome  en- 
countered on  all  hands,  and  the  dauntless  resolution  with 
which  he  accomplished  his  task.  Let  me  now  say  a  few 
Avords  on  the  subsequent  fate  of  his  revision,  for  this  also  is 
an  instructive  page  in  history.f  When  completed,  it  received 
no  authoritative  sanction.  His  patron,  pope  Damasus,  at 
whose  instigation  he  had  undertaken  the  task,  was  dead.  The 
successors  of  Damasus  showed  no  favor  to  Jerome  or  to  his 
work.  The  Old  Latin  still  continued  to  be  read  in  churches : 
it  was  still  quoted  in  the  writings  of  divines.  Even  Augus- 
tine, who,  after  the  comjDletion  of  the  task,  seems  to  have 
overcome  his  misgivings,  and  speaks  in  praise  of  Jerome's 
work,  remains  constant  to  the  older  version.  But  first  one 
writer,  and  then  another,  begins  to  adopt  the  revised  transla- 
tion of  Jerome.  Still  its  recognition  depends  on  the  cai3rice 
or  the  judgment  of  individual  men.  Even  the  bishops  of 
Rome  had  not  yet  discovered  that  it  was  "  authentic."  One 
pope  will  use  the  Hieronymian  revision;  a  second  will  retain 
the  Old  Latin ;  while  a  third  will  use  either  indifferently,  and 
a  fourth  will  quote  from  the  one  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
from  the  other  in  the  New.J  As  late  as  two  centuries  after 
Jerome's  time,  Gregory  the  Great. can  still  Avrite  that  he  in- 
tends to  avail  himself  of  either  indifferently,  as  his  purpose 
may  require,  since  "  the  Apostolic  See,  over  which,  by  the 

*  C>(9.,ix.,U08,  "Mihimet  ipsi  et  meis  juxta  Ismeniam  canens,  si  aures 
surda;  sunt  ceterorum." 

t  The  history  of  the  gradual  reception  of  Jerome's  revision  is  traced  in 
Ivaulen's  Geschichte  derVulgata,  p.  190  seq.  (Mainz,  1868). 

X  These  statements  may  be  verified  by  the  quotations  in  Kaulen's  work. 


AUTHORIZED  VERSION  OF  THE  ENGLISH  BIBLE.  29 

grace  of  God,  be  presides,  uses  both."*  Thus  slowly,  but  sure- 
ly, Jerome's  revision  won  its  way,  till  at  length,  some  centu- 
ries after  its  author's  death,  it  drove  its  elder  rivals  out  of 
the  field,  and  became  the  one  recognized  version  of  the  Bible 
throu shout  the  Latin  churches. 


11. 

I  can  not  forbear  to  call  attention  in  passing  to  the  close 
parallel  which  these  facts  present  to  the  history  of  the  so- 
called  Authorized  Version.  This  too,  like  Jerome's  revision, 
was  undertaken  amid  many  misgivings,  and,  when  it  appeared, 
was  received  with  coldness  or  criticised  with  severity.  When 
the  proposal  for  a  revision  was  first  brought  forward,  "my 
Lord  of  London"  is  reported  to  have  said  that  "  if  every 
man's  humor  should  be  followed  there  would  be  no  end  of 
translating."  The  translators  themselves,  when  they  issue 
their  work  to  the  public,  deprecate  the  adverse  criticism 
which  doubtless  they  saw  very  good  reason  to  apprehend. 
Such  a  Avork  as  theirs,  they  say  in  the  opening  paragraph  of 
the  Preface  to  the  Reader, "  is  welcomed  with  suspicion  in- 
stead of  love,  and  with  emulation  instead  of  thanks;  .  .  . 
and  if  there  be  any  hole  left  for  cavil  to  enter  (and  cavil,  if 
it  do  not  find  a  hole,  will  make  one),  it  is  sure  to  be  miscon- 
strued, and  in  danger  to  be  condemned.  This  will  easily  be 
granted  by  as  many  as  know  story  or  have  any  experience. 
For  Avas  there  ever  any  thing  projected  that  savored  any 
way  of  newness  or  renewing  but  the  same  endured  many  a 
storm  of  gainsaying  or  opposition?"  and  again:  "Whosoever 
attempteth  any  thing  for  the  public  (especially  if  it  pertain 
to  religion,  and  to  the  opening  and  clearing  of  the  Word  of 
God),  the  same  setteth  himself  upon  a  stage  to  be  glouted 

*  Greg.  Magn.,Mor.2n  /o6. , Epist. ad  fin.  "Novam  translationem  dissero; 
sed  cum  probationis  causa  exigit,  nunc  novam,  nunc  veterem  per  testimonia 
assurao ;  iit,  quia  sedes  Apostolica  cui  Deo  auctore  proesideo  utraque  utitur, 
mei  quoque  labor  studii  ex  utraque  fulciatur"  (0/>.,  i.,  p.  6,Venet.,  1768). 


30      LIGUTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISIOy  OF  TEE  X.  TEST. 

upon  by  every  evil  eye,  yea,  he  eastetli  himself  headlong  ujaon 
pikes,  to  be  gored  by  every  sharp  tongue.  For  he  that  med- 
dleth  with  men's  religion  in  any  part,  meddleth  with  their 
custom,  nay,  wnth  their  freehold  ;  and  though  they  find  no 
content  in  that  which  they  have,  yet  they  can  not  abide  to 
hear  of  altering." 

The  parallel,  moreover,  extends  to  the  circumstances  of  its 
reception.  It  seems  now  to  be  an  established  fact  (so  for  as 
any  fact  in  history  which  involves  a  comprehensive  negative 
can  be  regarded  as  established)  that  the  Revised  Version 
never  received  any  final  authorization  either  from  the  eccle- 
siastical or  from  the  civil  powers;  that  it  was  not  sanctioned 
either  by  the  Houses  of  Parliament,  or  by  the  Houses  of  Con- 
vocation, or  by  the  king  in  council.  The  Bishops'  Bible  still 
continued  to  be  read  in  churches ;  the  Geneva  Bible  was 
still  the  familiar  volume  of  the  fireside  and  closet.*  Several 
years  after  the  appearance  of  the  Revised  Version,  Bishop 
Andrewes,  though  himself  one  of  the  revisers,  still  continues 
to  quote  from  an  older  Bible.  Yet,  notwithstanding  all  ad- 
verse circumstances,  it  overpowered  both  its  rivals  by  the 
force  of  superior  merit.  It  was  found  to  be,  as  one  had  said 
long  before  of  Jerome's  revision,  "  et  verborum  tenacior  et 
perspicuitate  sentential  clarior;"f  and  this  was  the  secret  of 
its  success.  "  Thus,"  writes  Dr. Westcott,  "  at  the  very  time 
when  the  monarchy  and  the  Church  were,  as  it  seemed,  final- 
ly overthrown,  the  English  people,  by  their  silent  and  unani- 
mous accej)tance  of  the  new  Bible,  gave  a  sjjontaneous  testi- 

*  The  printing  of  the  Bishops'  Bible  was  stopped  as  soon  as  the  new  revision 
was  determined  upon.  The  last  edition  of  the  former  was  published  in  IGOG. 
The  Revised  Version  states  on  its  title-page  (1611)  that  it  is  "Appointed  to 
be  read  in  Churches,"  but  we  are  not  told  bj  whom  or  how  it  was  appointed. 
As  the  copies  of  the  Bishops'  Bible  used  in  the  churches  were  worn  out,  they 
would  probably  be  replaced  by  the  Revised  Version  ;  but  this  seems  to  have 
been  the  only  advantage  which  was  accorded  to  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Geneva  Bible  continued  to  be  printed  by  the  king's  printer  some  years  after 
the  appearance  of  the  Revised  Version,  and  was  still  marked  "  Cum  privilegio 
Regiic  majestatis." 

t  Isidor.  Hispal. ,  Etym. ,  vi. ,  4  ;  comp.  De  Off.  JEccl. ,  i. ,  1 2. 


LESSONS  SUGGESTED  BY  THESE  HIST.  PARALLELS.        31 

mony  to  the  principles  of  order  and  catholicity  of  which  both 
were  an  embodiment."  "A  revision  which  embodied  the 
ripe  fruit  of  nearly  a  century  of  labor,  and  appealed  to  the 
religious  instinct  of  a  great  Christian  people,  gained  by  its 
own  internal  character  a  vital  authority  which  could  never 
have  been  secured  by  any  edict  of  sovereign  rulers."* 

But  the  parallel  may  be  carried  a  step  farther.  In  both 
these  cases  alike,  as  we  have  seen,  God's  law  of  jDrogressive 
improvement,  which  in  animal  and  vegetable  life  has  been 
called  the  principle  of  natural  selection,  was  vindicated  here, 
so  that  the  inferior  gradually  disappeared  before  the  superior 
in  the  same  kind ;  but  in  both  cases  also  the  remnants  of  an 
eai'lier  Bible  held  and  still  hold  their  ground,  as  a  testimony 
to  the  past.  As  in  parts  of  the  Latin  Service-books  the  Vul- 
gate has  not  even  yet  displaced  the  Old  Latin,  which  is  still 
retained  either  in  its  pristine  or  in  its  partially  amended  form, 
so  also  in  our  own  Book  of  Common  Prayer  an  older  version 
still  maintains  its  place  in  the  Psalter  and  in  the  occasional 
sentences,  as  if  to  keep  before  our  eyes  the  progressive  his- 
tory of  our  English  Bible. 


in. 

All  history  is  a  type,  a  parable.  The  hopes  and  the  mis- 
givings, the  failures  and  the  successes  of  the  past  reproduce 
themselves  in  the  present ;  and  it  appeared  to  me  that  at 
this  crisis,  when  a  revision  of  our  English  Bible  is  imminent, 
we  might  with  advantage  study  the  history  of  that  revised 
translation,  which  alone  among  Biblical  Versions  can  bear 
comparison  with  our  own  in  its  circulation  and  influence. 

And,  first  of  all,  in  the  gloomy  forebodings  which  have  ush- 
ered in  this  scheme  for  a  new  revision,  we  seem  to  hear  the 
very  echo  of  those  warning  voices,  which  happily  fell  dead  on 
the  ear  of  the  resolute  Jerome.  The  alarming  consequences 
which  some  anticipate  from  any  attempt  to  meddle  with  our 
*  History  of  the  English  Bible,  p.  158,  IGO. 

F 


32       LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

time-honoved  version  have  their  exact  counterpart  in  the 
apprehensions  by  which  his  contemporaries  sought  to  deter 
him.  The  danger  of  estranging  divers  churches  and  con- 
gregations at  present  united  in  the  acceptance  of  a*  common 
Bible,  and  the  danger  of  perplexing  the  faith  of  individual 
believers  by  suggesting  to  them  variations  of  text  and  uncer- 
tainties of  interpretation — these  are  now,  as  they  Avere  then, 
the  twin  perils  by  Avhich  it  is  sought  to  scare  the  advocates 
of  revision. 

Moreover,  there  is  the  like  exaggerated  estimate  of  the 
amount  of  change  which  any  body  of  revisers  would  proba- 
bly introduce.  To  this  we  can  only  give  the  same  answer 
as  Jerome.  Not  translation,  but  revision,  is  the  object  of  all 
who  have  promoted  this  new  movement.  There  is  no  inten- 
tion of  snapping  the  thread  of  history  by  the  introduction  of 
a  new  version.  Our  English  Bible  owes  its  unrivaled  merits 
to  the  principle  of  revision,  and  this  principle  it  is  proposed 
once  more  to  invoke.  "  To  whom  ever,"  say  the  authors  of 
our  Received  Version,  "  was  it  imputed  for  a  failing  (by  such 
as  weVe  wise)  to  go  over  that  which  he  had  done,  and  to 
amend  it  where  he  saw  cause  ?"  "  Truly,  good  Christian 
reader,  we  never  thought  from  the  beginning  that  we  should 
need  to  make  a  new  translation,  nor  yet  to  make  a  bad  one 
a  good  one  .  .  .  but  to  make  a  good  one  better  .  .  .  that 
hath  been  our  endeavor,  that  our  mark," 

Nor  again  will  the  eminence  of  antagonists  deter  the  pro- 
moters of  this  movement,  if  they  feel  that  they  have  truth  on 
their  side.  Augustine  was  a  gi-eater  theologian,  as  well  as  a 
better  man,  than  Jerome.  But  in  this  matter  he  was  treading 
on  alien  ground ;  he  had  not  earned  the  right  to  speak.  On 
the  other  hand,  a  life-long  devotion  to  the  study  of  the  Bibli- 
cal text  in  the  original  languages  had  filled  Jerome  with  the 
sense  alike  of  the  importance  of  the  work  and  of  the  responsi- 
bility of  his  position.  He  could  not  be  deterred  by  the  fears 
of  any  adversaries,  however  good  and  however  able.  He  felt 
the  iron  hand  of  a  strong  necessity  laid  upon  him,  and  he 


LESSOXS  SUGGESTED  BY  THESE  HIST.  PARALLELS.        33 

could  not  choose  but  023en  out  to  others  the  stores  of  script- 
ural wealth  which  he  himself  had  been  perm,itted  to  amass. 

And  again,  we  may  take  courage  from  the  results  which 
followed  from  his  design,  dauntlessly  and  persistently  carried 
out.  None  of  the  perilous  consequences  which  friend  and  foe 
alike  had  foreboded  did  really  ensue.  There  was,  indeed,  a 
long  interval  of  transition,  during  which  the  rival  versions 
contended  for  supremacy ;  but  no  weakening  of  individual 
faith,  no  alienation  of  churches,  can  be  traced  to  this  source. 
The  great  schism  of  the  Church,  the  severance  of  East  and 
West,  was  due  to  human  passion  and  prejudice,  to  fraud,  and 
self-will,  and  ambition.  History  does  not  mention  any  re- 
laxation of  the  bonds  of  union  as  the  consequence  of  Jerome's 
work.  On  the  contrary,  the  Vulgate  has  been  a  tower  of 
strength  to  the  Latin  chui'ches,  as  Jerome  foresaw  that  it 
would  be.  He  labored  for  conscience  sake,  more  than  con- 
tent if  his  work  proved  acceptable  to  one  or  two  intimate 
friends ;  he  sought  not  the  praise  of  men ;  his  own  genera- 
tion viewed  his  labors  with  suspicion  or  hatred,  and  he  has 
been  rewarded  with  the  universal  gratitude  of  after  ages. 

Nor  is  it  uninstructive  to  observe  that  the  very  point  on 
which  his  contemporaries  laid  the  greatest  stress  in  their 
charges  against  him  has  come  to  be  regarded  by  ourselves  as 
his  most  signal  merit.  To  him  we  owe  it  that  in  the  West- 
ern churches  the  Hebrew  original,  and  not  the  Septuagint 
Version,  is  the  basis  of  the  people's  Bible ;  and  that  a  broad 
and  indelible  line  has  been  drawn  once  for  all  between  the 
canon  of  the  Old  Testament  as  known  to  the  Hebrew  nation, 
and  the  later  accretions  which  had  gathered  about  it  in  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Bibles.  Thus  we  ai*e  reaping  the  fruits  of 
his  courage  and  fidelity.  We  are  the  proper  heirs  of  his  la- 
bors. The  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  still  continue 
to  quote  St.  Jerome's  authority  for  the  distinction  between 
the  canonical  and  apocryphal  books,  which  the  Council  of 
Trent  did  its  best  to  obscure. 

But  there  is  yet  another  lesson  to  be  learned  from  the  his- 


34      LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

tory  of  Jerome's  revision.  The  circumstances  of  its  reception 
are  full  of  instruction  and  encouragement.  It  owed  nothing, 
as  we  have  seen,  to  official  sanction ;  it  won  its  way  by  ster- 
ling merit.  Now  let  us  suppose  that  the  revision  which  we 
are  about  to  undertake  is  successfully  accomplished.  How 
are  we  to  deal  with  it  ?  If  the  work  commends  itself  at  once 
to  all  or  to  a  large  majority  as  superior  to  the  present  version, 
then  let  it  by  all  means  be  substituted  by  some  formal  au- 
thorization. But  this  is  quite  too  much  to  expect.  Though 
St.  Jerome's  revision  was  incomparably  better  than  the  Old 
Latin,  though  the  superiority  of  our  received  English  version 
to  its  predecessors  is  allowed  on  all  hands,  no  such  instanta- 
neous welcome  was  accorded  to  either.  They  had  to  run  the 
gauntlet  of  adverse  criticism ;  they  fought  their  way  to  ac- 
ceptance inch  by  inch.  I  suppose  that  no  one  who  takes 
part  in  this  new  revision  is  so  sanguine  as  to  hope  that  his 
work  will  be  more  tenderly  treated.  This  being  so,  it  does 
not  seem  to  be  necessary,  and  it  is  perhaps  not  even  advisa- 
ble, that  the  new  Revised  Version,  if  successfully  completed, 
should  at  once  authoritatively  displace  the  old.  Only  let  it 
not  be  prohibited.  Give  it  a  fair  field,  and  a  few  years  will 
decide  the  question  of  superiority.  I  do  not  myself  consider 
it  a  great  evil  that  for  a  time  two  concurrent  versions  should 
be  in  use.  This,  at  least,  seems  a  simple  practical  solution, 
unless,  indeed,  there  should  be  such  an  immediate  conver- 
gence of  opinion  in  favor  of  the  revised  version  as  past  ex- 
perience does  not  encourage  us  to  expect. 


lY. 

But  let  it  be  granted  that  the  spectres  which  a  timid  ap- 
prehension calls  into  being  are  scai-ed  away  by  the  light  of 
history  aud  experience,  and  that  the  dangerous  consequences 
of  revision  are  shown  to  be  imaginary ;  we  have  still  to  ask 
whether  there  is  sufficient  reason  for  undertaking  such  a 
work,  or  (in  other  words)  whether  the  defects  of  the  existing 


NECESSITY  FOR  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  A  UTII.  VERS.       35 

version  are  such  as  to  call  for  systematic  amendment  ?  Here 
a(»ain  we  are  met  by  the  same  objection,  of  which  our  trans- 
lators were  obliged  to  take  notice :  "  Many  men's  mouths," 
they  write, "  have  been  ojjen  a  good  while  (and  yet  are  not 
stopped)  with  speeches  about  the  translation  so  long  in  hand 
.  .  .  and  ask  what  may  be  the  reason,  what  the  necessity  of 
the  employment :  Hath  the  Church  been  deceived,  say  they, 
all  this  while?  Hath  her  sweet  bread  been  mingled  with 
leaven,  her  silver  with  dross,  her  wine  with  water,  her  milk 
with  lime  ?" 

In  addressing  myself  to  this  question,  I  can  not  attempt 
to  give  an  exhaustive  answer.  Materials  for  such  an  answer 
will  be  found  scattered  up  and  down  Biblical  Commentaries 
and  other  exegetical  works.*  In  Archbishop  Trench's  in- 
structive volume  On  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New 
Testament,  published  a  few  years  ago,  they  are  gathered  into 
a  focus ;  and  quite  recently,  in  anticipation  of  the  impending 
revision.  Bishop  Ellicott  has  stated  the  case  concisely,  giving^ 
examples  of  different  classes  of  errors  which  call  for  correc- 
tion. For  a  fuller  justification  of  the  advocates  of  revision  I 
would  refer  to  these  and  similar  works,  confining  myself  to  a 
few  more  prominent  points,  in  which  our  version  falls  behind 
the  knowledge  of  the  age,  and  offering  some  examples  in  il- 
lustration of  each.  While  doing  so,  I  shall  be  led  necessarily 
to  dwell  almost  exclusively  on  the  defects  of  our  English  Bi- 
ble, and  to  ignore  its  merits.  But  I  trust  it  will  be  unneces- 
sary for  me,  on  this  account,  to  deprecate  adverse  criticism. 
No  misapprehension  is  more  serious  or  more  unjust  than  the 
assumption  that  those  who  advocate  revision  are  blind  to  the 
excellence  of  the  existing  version.  It  is  the  very  sense  of 
this  excellence  which  prompts  the  desire  to  make  an  admira- 
ble instrument  more  perfect.  On  the  other  hand,  they  can 
not  shut  their  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  assiduous  labors  of 
scholars  and  divines  during  two  centuries  and  a  half  have 

*  For  the  literature  of  the  subject,  see  Professor  Plumptre's  interesting  ar- 
ticle in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  s.  v.  Version,  Authorized,  p.  1679. 


36      LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FEESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

not  been  fruitless,  and  they  are  naturally  anxious  to  pour 
into  the  treasury  of  the  temple  these  accumulated  gains  of 
many  generations. 

And  first  of  all  let  us  boldly  face  the  fact  that  the  most 
important  changes  in  which  a  revision  may  result  will  be  due 
to  the  variations  of  reading  in  the  Greek  text.  It  was  not 
the  fault,  it  was  the  misfortune,  of  the  scholars  from  Tyndale 
downward,  to  whom  we  owe  our  English  Bible,  that  the  only 
text  accessible  to  them  Avas  faulty  and  corrupt.  I  need  not 
take  up  time  in  recapitulating  the  history  of  the  received 
text,  which  will  be  known  to  all.  It  is  sufficient  to  state 
that  all  textual  critics  are  substantially  agreed  on  this  point, 
though  they  may  differ  among  themselves  as  to  the  exact 
amount  of  change  which  it  will  be  necessary  to  introduce. 

No  doubt,  when  the  subject  of  various  readings  is  men- 
tioned, grave  apprehensions  will  arise  in  the  minds  of  some 
persons.  But  this  is  just  the  case  where  more  light  is  wanted 
to  allay  the  fears  which  a  vague  imagination  excites.  The 
recent  language  of  alarmists  on  this  point  seems  incredible 
to  those  who  have  paid  any  attention  to  the  subject.  I  can 
only  state  my  own  conviction  that  a  study  of  the  history  and 
condition  of  the  Greek  text  solves  far  more  difficulties  than 
it  creates.  Moi'e  especially  it  brings  out  the  fact  of  the  very 
early  and  wide  diffusion  of  the  New  Testament  writings 
with  a  clearness  and  a  cogency  which  is  irresistible,  and  thus 
bears  most  important  testimony  to  their  genuineness  and  in- 
tegrity. Even  the  variations  themselves  have  the  highest 
value  in  this  respect.  Thus,  for  instance,  when  we  find  that 
soon  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century  divergent  read- 
ings of  a  striking  kind  occur  in  St.  John's  Gospel,  as,  for  in- 
stance, fioyoyev^g  Qeog  and  6  fiovoyeytig  vlog  (i.,  18),  we  are  led  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  text  has  already  a  history,  and  that 
the  Gospel,  therefore,  can  not  have  been  very  recent.  This 
evidential 'value  of  textual  criticism,  moreover,  shows  itself 


FALSE  EEIDIXGS.  3/7 

in  Other  M'ays.  I  will  select  one  instance,  which  has  always 
appeared  to  me  very  instructive,  as  illustrating  the  results  of 
this  study — apparently  so  revolutionary  in  its  methods,  and 
yet  really  so  conservative  in  its  ends. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  after  having  been  received 
by  churches  and  individuals  alike  (so  far  as  we  know),  with- 
out a  single  exception,  from  the  earliest  times,  as  the  unques- 
tioned work  of  the  apostle  whose  name  it  bears,  has  been 
challenged  in  our  own  generation.  Now  there  is  one  for- 
midable argument,  and  one  only,  against  its  genuineness.  It 
is  urged  with  irresistible  force  that  St.  Paul  could  not  have 
written  in  this  strain  to  a  Church  in  which  he  had  resided 
for  some  three  years,  and  Avith  which  he  lived  on  the  closest 
and  most  affectionate  terms.  So  far  as  regards  reference  to 
persons  or  incidents,  this  is  quite  the  most  colorless  of  all  St. 
Paul's  Epistles;  whereas  we  should  expect  to  find  it  more 
full  and  definite  in  its  allusions  than  any  other,  except  per- 
haps the  letters  to  Corinth.  To  this  objection  no  satisfactory 
answer  can  be  given  without  the  aid  of  textual  criticism. 
But  from  textual  criticism  we  learn  that  an  intelligent  and 
well-informed,  though  heretical  writer  of  the  second  century, 
called  it  an  Epistle  to  the  Laodiceans;  that  in  the  opening 
verse  the  words  "  in  Ephesus"  are  wanting  in  the  two  oldest 
extant  Greek  MSS. ;  that  the  most  leai-ned  of  the  Gi'eek  fa- 
thers in  the  middle  of  the  third  century — himself  a  textual 
critic — had  not  the  words  in  his  copy  or  copies ;  and  that 
another  learned  Greek  father  in  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century  declares  them  to  be  absent  from  the  oldest  manu- 
scripts— not  to  mention  other  subsidiary  notices  tending  in 
the  same  direction.  Putting  these  facts  together,  we  get  a 
complete  answer  to  the  objection.  The  epistle  is  found  to 
be  a  circular  letter,  addressed  probably  to  the  churches  of 
Proconsular  Asia,  of  which  Ephesus  was  one  and  Laodicea 
another.  From  Ephesus,  as  the  metropolis,  it  derived  its 
usual  title,  because  the  largest  number  of  copies  in  circula- 
tion would  be  derived  from  the  autograph  sent  thither ;  but 


38      LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

here  and  there  a  copy  was  extant  in  early  times  addressed  to 
some  other  Church  (as  Laodicea,  for  instance) ;  and  still  more 
commonly  copies  existed  taken  from  some  MS,  in  which  the 
blank  for  the  name  of  the  Church  had  not  been  filled  up. 
This  circular  character  of  the  letter  fully  explains  the  ab- 
sence of  personal  or  historical  allusions.  Thus  textual  criti- 
cism in  this  instance  removes  our  difficulty ;  but  its  services 
do  not  end  here.  It  furnishes  a  body  of  circumstantial  evi- 
dence Avhich,  I  venture  to  think,  must  ultimately  carry  irre- 
sistible conviction  as  to  the  authorshijD  of  the  letter,  though 
for  the  present  some  are  found  to  hesitate.  For  these  facts 
supplied  by  textual  criticism  connect  themselves  with  the 
mention  of  the  letter  which  the  Colossians  are  charged  to 
get  from  Laodicea  (Col.  iv.,16),  and  this  mention  again  com- 
bines with  the  strong  resemblances  of  matter  and  diction,  so 
as  to  bind  these  two  epistles  inseparably  together,  while, 
again,  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians  is  linked  not  less  ihdis- 
solubly  with  the  letter  to  Philemon  by  the  references  to  per- 
son, and  place,  and  circumstance.  Thus  the  three  epistles 
form  a  compact  whole,  to  resist  the  assaults  of  adverse  criti- 
cism. A  striking  amount  of  undesigned  coincidence  is  gath- 
ered together  from  the  most  diverse  quarters,  converging 
unmistakably  to  one  result.  And  the  point  to  be  observed 
is,  that  many  of  these  coincident  elements  are  not  found  in 
the  epistles  themselves,  but  in  the  external  history  of  the 
text,  a  circumstance  which  gives  them  a  far  higher  evidential 
value.  For,  even  if  it  were  possible  to  imagine  a  forger  in 
an  uncritical  age  at  once  able  to  devise  a  series  of  artifices  so 
subtle  and  so  complex  as  on  the  supposition  of  the  sjaurious- 
ness  of  one  or  all  of  these  Letters  we  are  obliged  to  assume, 
and  willing  to  defeat  his  own  purpose  by  tangling  a  skein 
which  it  would  require  the  critical  education  of  the  nineteenth 
century  to  unravel,  yet  there  would  remain  the  still  greater 
improbability  that  a  man  in  such  a  position  could  have  exer- 
cised an  efibctive  control  over  external  circumstances — the 
difi'usion  and  the  subsequent  history  of  his  forgeries — such  as 
this  hypothesis  would  suppose. 


FALSE  REABIXGS.  39 

This  instance  will  illustrate  my  meaning  when  I  alluded  to 
the  conservative  action  of  textual  criticism,  for  such  I  con- 
ceive to  be  its  general  tendency.  But,  in  fact,  the  considera- 
tion of  consequences  ought  not  to  weigh  with  us  in  a  matter 
where  duty  is  so  obvious.  It  must  be  our  single  aim  to  place 
the  Bible  in  its  integrity  before  the  people  of  Christ ;  and,  so 
long  as  we  sincerely  follow  the  truth,  we  can  afford  to  leave 
the  consequences  in  God's  hands;  and  I  can  not  too  strongly 
urge  the  truism  (for  truism  it  is)  that  the  higher  value  we  set 
on  the  Bible  as  being  or  as  containing  the  Word  of  God,  the 
greater  (if  we  are  faithful  to  our  trust)  will  be  our  care  to 
ascertain  the  exact  expressions  of  the  original  by  the  aid  of 
all  the  critical  resources  at  our  command.  We  have  seen 
that  St.  Jerome's  courage  was  chiefly  tried  in  the  substitution 
of  a  purer  text,  and  that  his  fidelity  herein  has  been  recog- 
nized as  his  greatest  claim  to  the  gratitude  of  after  ages. 
The  work  which  our  new  revisers  Avill  be  required  to  execute 
is  far  less  revolutionary  than  his.  Where  his  task  required 
him  to  substitute  a  wholly  new  text  in  the  Old  Testament, 
they  will  only  be  required  to  cancel  or  to  change  a  word  or 
expression,  or,  in  rare  cases,  a  verse,  here  and  there  in  the 
New.  Where  he  was  faithful  in  great  things,  we  may  trust 
that  they  will  not  be  faithless  in  small. 

The  question,  therefore,  is  not  one  of  jDolicy,  but  of  truth. 
Yet  still  it  is  well  to  face  the  probable  results,  because  ap- 
prehension is  especially  alive  on  this  point,  and  because  only 
by  boldly  confronting  the  spectres  of  a  vague  alarm  can  we 
hope  to  lay  them. 

Let  us,  then,  first  of  all,  set  it  down  as  an  unmixed  gain 
that  we  shall  rid  ourselves  of  an  alliance  which  is  a  constant 
source  of  weakness  and  perplexity  to  us.  No  more  serious 
damage  can  be  done  to  a  true  cause  than  by  summoning  in 
its  defense  a  witness  who  i&  justly  suspected  or  manifestly 
perjured.  Yet  this  is  exactly  the  attitude  which  the  verse  re- 
lating to  the  heavenly  witnesses  (1  John  v.,  7)  bears  towards 
the  great  doctrine  which  it  proclaims,  so  long  as  it  retains  a 


40      LIGETFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

place  in  the  Bible  which  we  put  into  the  hands  of  the  j)eople. 
Shortly  after  the  question  of  revision  was  first  mooted,  an 
article  on  the  subject  appeared  in  a  popular  daily  paper,  in 
which  the  writer,  taking  occasion  to  refer  to  this  -serse,  com- 
mitted himself  to  two  statements  respecting  it :  Jirst,  that 
the  passage  in  question  had  done  much  towards  promoting 
the  belief  in  the  doctrine  which  it  puts  forward ;  and,  secojid- 
li/,  that  the  interpolator  knew  well  what  he  was  about,  and 
used  very  efficient  means  to  gain  his  end.  Now  both  these 
statements  were  evidently  made  in  good  faith  by  the  writer, 
and  would,  I  suppose,  be  accepted  as  true  by  a  very  large 
number  of  his  readers.  But  those  who  have  given  any  spe- 
cial attention  to  the  subject  know  that  neither  will  bear  ex- 
amination. The  first  contradicts  the  jDlain  facts  of  history; 
the  second  militates  against  the  most  probable  inferences  of 
criticism.  As  regards  the  first  point,  it  seems  unquestionable 
that  the  doctrine  was  formally  defined  and  firmly  established 
some  time  before  the  interpolation  appeared.  A  study  of 
history  shows  that  the  Church  arrived  at  the  catholic  state- 
ment of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  partly  because  it  was  in- 
dicated in  other  passages  of  the  New  Testament  (e,^/.,  Matt. 
xxviii.,19;  2  Cor,  xiii.,14),  and  partly  because  it  was  the  only 
statement  which,  recognizing  the  fact  of  the  Incarnation  of 
the  Divine  Word,  was  found  at  once  to  satisfy  the  instincts 
of  a  devout  belief  and  the  requirements  of  a  true  philosophy; 
and  that  the  text  in  question  had  not,  and  could  not  have, 
any  thing  to  do  with  its  establishment.  Indeed,  the  very 
fact  that  it  is  nowhere  quoted  by  the  great  controversial 
writers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  has  been  truly  re- 
garded as  the  strongest  evidence  against  its  genuineness. 
And  in  more  recent  times,  when  the  doctrine  began  to  be 
challenged,  the  text  was  challenged  also;  so  that  at  this  stage 
the  doctrine  did  not  gain,  but  lose,  by  the  advocacy  of  a  wit- 
ness whose  questionable  character  threw  discredit  upon  it. 
Again,  the  second  statement  equally  breaks  down  when  in- 
vestigated.   Textual  criticism  shows  that  the  clause  contain- 


FALSE  READMOS.  41 

ing  the  three  heavenly  Avitnesses  was  not,  in  the  first  instance, 
a  deliberate  forgery,  but  a  comparatively  innocent  gloss, 
which  put  a  dii'ectly  theological  interpretation  on  the  three 
genuine  witnesses  of  St.  John — the  spirit,  and  the  water,  and 
the  blood — a  gloss  which  is  given  substantially  by  St.  Au- 
gustine, and  was  indicated  before  by  Origen  and  Cyprian, 
and  which  first  thrust  itself  into  the  text  in  some  Latin  MSS., 
where  it  betrays  its  origin  not  only  by  its  varieties  of  form, 
but  also  by  the  fact  that  it  occurs  sometimes  before  and 
sometimes  after  the  mention  of  the  three  genuine  witnesses 
which  it  was  intended  to  explain.  Thus  both  these  state- 
ments alike  break  down,  and  we  see  no  ground  for  placing 
this  jnemorable  verse  in  the  same  category  with  such  fictions 
as  the  False  Decretals,  whether  we  regard  its  origin  or  its 
results ;  for,  unlike  them,  it  was  not  a  deliberate  forgery, 
and,  unlike  them  also,  it  did  not  create  a  dogma.  I  only 
quote  this  criticism  to  show  how  much  prejudice  may  be 
raised  against  the  truth  by  the  retention  of  interpolations 
like  this ;  nor  can  we  hold  ourselves  free  from  blame  if  such 
statements  are  made  and  accepted  so  long  as  we  take  no 
steps  to  eject  from  our  Bibles  an  intrusive  passage  against 
which  external  and  internal  evidence  alike  have  pronounced 
a  decisive  verdict.  In  this  instance  our  later  English  Bibles 
have  retrograded  from  the  more  truthful  position  of  the  ear- 
lier. In  Tyndale's,  Coverdale's,  and  the  Great  Bibles,  the 
spurious  words  are  placed  in  brackets  and  printed  in  a  difier- 
ent  type,  and  thus  attention  is  directed  to  their  suspicious 
character.  In  Luther's  Gei'man  Translation  (in  its  original 
form),  as  also  in  the  Zurich  Latin  Bible  of  1543,  they  were 
omitted.  In  the  Geneva  Testament  first,  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
and  in  the  Bishops'  Bible  after  it,  the  example  was  set,  which 
the  translators  of  our  Authorized  Version  unhappily  followed, 
of  dispensing  with  these  marks  of  doubtful  genuineness,  and 
printing  the  passage  uniformly  with  the  context. 

In  other  doctrinal  passages  where  important  various  read- 
ings occur,  the  solution  will  not  be  so  simple ;  but  in  doubt- 


42       LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

ful  cases  the  margin  may  usefully  be  employed.  Altogether, 
the  instances  in  which  doctrine  is  directly  or  indirectly  in- 
volved are  very  few  j  and,  though  individual  texts  might  be 
altered,  the  balance  of  doctrinal  statement  would  probably 
not  be  disturbed  by  the  total  result,  a  change  in  one  direction 
being  compensated  by  a  change  in  the  other.  Thus,  for  in- 
stance, if  the  reading  "  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh"  should 
have  to  give  place  to  "  Who  Avas  manifest  in  the  flesh"  in  1 
Tim.  iii.,  16,  and  retire  to  the  margin,  yet,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  "  Only-begotten  God"  would  seem  to  have  equal  or  supe- 
rior claims  to  "the  Only-begotten  Son"  in  John  i.,  18,  and 
must  either  supersede  it,  or  claim  a  place  side  by  side  with  it. 

The  passages  which  touch  Christian  sentiment,  or  histo- 
ry, or  morals,  and  which  are  afiected  by  textual  difierences, 
though  less  rare  than  the  former,  are  still  very  few.  Of  these, 
the  pericope  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  holds  the  first 
place  in  importance.  In  this  case  a  deference  to  the  most 
ancient  authorities,  as  well  as  a  consideration  of  internal  evi- 
dence, might  seem  to  involve  immediate  loss.  The  best  solu- 
tion would  probably  be  to  place  the  passage  in  brackets,  for 
the  purpose  of  showing,  not,  indeed,  that  it  contains  an  un- 
true narrative  (for,  whencesoever  it  comes,  it  seems  to  bear 
on  its  face  the  highest  credentials  of  authentic  history),  but 
that  evidence  external  and  internal  is  against  its  being  re- 
garded as  an  integral  portion  of  the  original  Gospel  of  St. 
John.  The  close  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel  should  possibly  be 
treated  in  the  same  way.  If  I  might  venture  a  conjecture,  I 
should  say  that  both  the  one  and  the  other  were  due  to  that 
knot  of  early  disciples  who  gathered  about  St.  John  in  Asia 
Minor,  and  must  have  preserved  more  than  one  true  tradition 
of  the  Lord's  life  and  of  the  earliest  days  of  the  Church,  of 
which  some,  at  least,  had  themselves  been  eye-witnesses.* 

Again,  in  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  it  might  be  right  to  take  ac- 

*  The  account  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  is  known  to  have  been  re- 
lated by  Papias,  a  disciple  of  this  school,  early  in  the  second  century,  who 
also  speaks  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark.     Euseb.  ,H.E.,  iii. ,  39. 


FALSE  READINGS.  43 

count  of  certain  remarkable  omissions  in  some  texts,  and 
probably  in  these  cases  a  marginal  note  would  be  the  best 
solution.  Such,  for  instance,  are  the  words  addressed  to 
James  and  Luke,  ix.,  55,  "Ye  know  not  of  what  spirit  ye  are;" 
or  the  agony  in  the  garden,  xxii.,  43, 44 ;  or  the  solemn  words 
on  the  cross,  xxiii.,  34.  It  seems  impossible  to  believe  that 
these  incidents  are  other  than  authentic ;  and  as  the  text  of 
St.  Luke's  Gospel  is  perhaps  exceptional  in  this  respect  (for 
the  omissions  in  St.  John's  Gospel  are  of  a  different  kind), 
the  solution  will  suggest  itself  that  the  evangelist  himself 
may  have  issued  two  separate  editions.  This  conjecture  will 
be  confirmed  by  observing  that  in  the  second  treatise  of  St. 
Luke  similar  traces  of  two  editions  are  seen  where  the  pas- 
sages omitted  in  many  texts,  though  not  important  in  them- 
selves (e.5'.,xxviii.,16,29),bear  equal  evidence  of  authenticity, 
and  are  entirely  free  from  suspicion  on  the  ground  that  they 
were  inserted  to  serve  any  purpose,  devotional  or  doctrinal. 
On  the  other  hand,  some  passages,  where  the  external  tes- 
timony is  equivocal  or  adverse,  are  open  to  suspicion,  because 
the  origin  of,  or  the  motive  for,  the  insertions  or  alterations 
lies  on  the  surface.  Thus,  in  St. Luke,  ii.,  33,  "his  father"  is 
altered  into  "Joseph;"  and  ten  verses  later,  "Joseph  and  his 
mother"  is  substituted  for  "  his  parents,"  evidently  because 
the  transcriber  was  alarmed  lest  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarna- 
tion might  be  imperiled  by  such  language ;  an  alarm  not 
entertained  by  the  evangelist  himself,  whose  own  narrative 
directly  precluded  any  false  inference,  and  who  therefore 
could  use  the  popular  language  without  fear  of  misapprehen- 
sion. And  again,  the  mention  of  "fasting"  in  connection 
with  praying  in  not  less  than  four  passages  (Matt,  xvii.,  21 ; 
Mark  ix.,29;  Acts  x.,  30;  1  Cor.  vii.,  5),  in  all  of  which  it  is 
rejected  by  one  or  more  of  the  best  editors,  shows  an  ascetic 
bias;  though,  indeed,  there  is  ample  sanction  elsewhere  in 
the  New  Testament  for  the  practice  which  it  was  thus  sought 
to  enforce  more  strongly.  Again,  allowance  must  be  made 
for  the  influence  of  liturgical  usage  in  such  passages  as  the 


44      LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

doxology  to  the  Lord's  Prayer,  Matt,  vi.,  13  ;  and  a  similar  ex- 
planation may  be  given  of  the  insertion  of  the  eunuch's  con- 
fession of  faith  preparatory  to  baptism,  Acts  viii.,  37.  And, 
again,  when  a  historical  difficulty  is  avoided  by  a  various 
reading,  this  should  be  taken  into  account,  as  in  Mark  i.,1, 
where,  indeed,  the  substitution  of  Iv  rw  'Ho-a/'a  rw  Trpo^i'iry  for 
the  common  reading  iy  rolg  irfjop'iraie  would  introduce  a  diffi- 
culty the  same  in  kind,  but  less  in  magnitude,  than  already 
exists  in  the  received  text  of  Matt,  xxvii.,  9.  Or,  lastly,  the 
desire  to  bring  out  the  presence  of  a  siqoernatural  agency 
may  have  had  its  influence  in  procuring  the  insertion  of  the 
words  describing  the  descent  of  the  angel  in  John  v.,  3,  4. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  some  cases  these  considerations  of  in- 
ternal probability  favor  the  existing  text,  where  external  evi- 
dence taken  alone  might  lead  to  a  difierent  result,  as  in  1 
Cor.  XV.,  51,  where  the  received  reading  -kuvtiq  oh  Koifiridrjao- 
fxeda,  Trdyreg  U  a\Xayr)(T6fieda,  is  SO  recommended  against  Trayreg 
Koi^rjdrjrro/Aeda,  oh  •Kavrtq  Oe  aXXayjjfro/XEQa. 

I  believe  that  I  have  not  only  indicated  (so  far  as  ray  space 
allows)  the  really  important  classes  of  various  readings,  but 
given  the  most  prominent  illustrations  in  each  instance.  The 
whole  number  of  such  readings,  indeed,  is  small,  and  only  a 
very  few  remain  after  the  examples  already  brought  forward. 
On  the  other  hand,  variations  of  a  subordinate  kind  are  more 
numerous.  These  occur  more  frequently  in  the  Gospel  than 
elsewhere,  arising  out  of  the  attempt  to  supplement  the  evan- 
gelical narrative  by  the  insertion  of  a  word  or  a  clause  from 
another,  or  to  bring  the  one  into  literal  conformity  with  the 
other  by  substitution  or  correction ;  but  no  considerations  of 
moment  are  involved  in  the  rectification  of  such  passages.  It 
is- very  rarely  indeed  that  a  various  reading  of  this  class  rises 
to  the  interest  of  Matt,  xix.,17,  rt  /uf  Ipwr^g  irepl  tov  ayadov 
(compared  with  Mark  x.,18;  Luke  xviii.,  19);  and,  for  the 
most  part,  they  are  w^holly  unimi^ortant  as  regards  any  doc- 
trinal or  practical  bearing. 

The  same  motive  which  operates  so  powerfully  in  the  Gos- 


FALSE  HEADINGS.  ■        45 

pels  will  also  influence,  though  in  a  far  less  degree,  the  text 
of  those  epistles  which  are  closely  allied  to  each  other,  as,  for 
instance,  the  Romans  and  Galatians,  or  the  Ephesians  and 
Colossians,  and  Avill  be  felt,  moreover,  in  isolated  parallel  pas- 
sages elsewhere ;  but,  for  the  most  part,  the  corruptions  in 
the  epistles  are  due  to  the  carelessness  of  scribes,  or  to  their 
officiousness  exercised  on  the  grammar  or  the  style.  The 
restoration  of  the  best  supported  reading  is  in  almost  every 
instance  a  gain,  either  as  establishing  a  more  satisfactory 
connection  of  sentences,  or  as  substituting  a  more  forcible 
expression  for  a  less  forcible  {e.  g.^irapafooktvaanEvoq  for  irapa- 
/3oi;\£V(70jLt£j'oc,  Phil,  ii.,  30),  or  in  other  ways  giving  i^oint  to 
the  expression,  and  bringing  out  a  better  and  clearer  sense 
(e.^.,Rom.  iv.,  19,  KUTevo-qtrev  to  eavrov  (Tuifia  .  .  .  uq  de  tijv  kiray- 
yeXiay  rov  Qeov  oh  SiEKpidr]  for  ov  Kareporjaev,  k.t.X.,  where  the 
point  is  that  Abraham  did  fully  recognize  his  own  condition, 
and  notioithstanding  was  not  staggered ;  or  2  Cor.  i.,  20,  Iv 
aurw  TO  vat,  ^tb  cat  li  avrov  to  nfxi)p,  /c.r.X.,  where  ral  denotes  the 
fulfillment  of  the  promise  on  the  part  of  God,  and  txp/v  the 
recognition  and  thanksgiving  on  the  part  of  the  Church,  a 
distinction  which  is  obliterated  by  the  received  reading  iu 
ai/rw  TO  ra\  /cat  iy  aurw  to  afir]v,;  or  2  Cor.  xii.,  1,  Kav)(a.(Tdai  Set,  ov 
cvfKpipoy  flit',  eXeuffOfiat  3e,  K.r.X.,  where  the  common  text,  kuv- 
■)(aadai  h)  ov  (jvfKpipei  fxoi,  IXevtrofiai  yap,  (c.r.X.,  IS  feeble  in  com- 
parison). It  is  this  very  fact,  that  reading  of  the  older  au- 
thorities almost  always  exhibits  some  improvement  in  the 
sense  (even  though  the  change  may  be  unimportant  in  itself), 
which  gives  us  the  strongest  assurance  of  their  trustworthi- 
ness as  against  the  superior  numbers  of  the  more  recent  copies. 
Altogether  it  may  be  safely  aiRrmed  that  the  permanent 
value  of  the  new  revision  will  depend  in  a  great  degree  on 
the  courage  and  fidelity  with  which  it  deals  with  questions 
of  readings.  If  the  signs  of  the  times  may  be  trusted,  the 
course  which  is  most  truthful  will  also  be  most  politic.  To 
be  conservative,  it  will  be  necessary  to  be  adequate,  for  no 
revision  which  fails  to  deal  fairly  with  these  textual  problems 


46      LIGETFOOT  ON  A  FBESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

can  be  lasting.     Here  also  the  example  of  St.  Jerome  is  full 
of  encouragement. 

§  2. 

From  errors  in  the  Greek  text  which  our  translators  used, 
we  may  jjass  on  to  faults  of  actual  translation.  And  here  I 
will  commence  with  one  class  which  is  not  unimportant  in 
itself,  and  w^hich  claims  to  be  considered  first,  because  the 
translators  have  dwelt  at  some  length  on  the  matter,  and  at- 
tempted to  justify  their  mode  of  proceeding.  I  refer  to  the 
various  renderings  of  the  same  word  or  words,  by  which  arti- 
ficial distinctions  are  introduced  in  the  translation  which  have 
no  place  in  the  original.  This  is  perhaps  the  only  point  in 
which  they  proceed  deliberately  on  a  wrong  principle.  "  We 
have  not  tied  ourselves,"  they  say  in  the  Preface, "  to  a  uni- 
formity of  phrasing  or  to  an  identity  of  words."  They  plead 
that  such  a  course  would  savor  "  more  of  curiosity  than  wis- 
dom," and  they  allege  the  quaint  reason  that  they  might "  be 
charged  (by  scofiers)  with  some  unequal  dealing  towards  a 
great  number  of  English  words"  if  they  adopted  one  to  the 
exclusion  of  another,  as  a  rendering  of  the  same  Greek  equiv- 
alent. Now,  if  they  had  restricted  themselves  within  projDcr 
limits  in  the  use  of  this  liberty,  no  fault  could  have  been 
found  with  this  vindication ;  but  when  the  translation  of  the 
same  word  is  capriciously  varied  in  the  same  paragraph,  and 
even  in  the  same  verse,  a  false  efiect  is  inevitably  produced, 
and  the  connection  will  in  sorne  cases  be  severed,  or  the  read- 
er more  or  less  seriously  misled  in  other  ways.  To  what  ex- 
tent they  have  thus  attempted  to  improve  upon  the  original 
by  introducing  variety,  the  following  examples,  though  they 
might  be  multiplied  many  times,  will  suffice  to  show. 

Why,  for  instance,  should  we  read  in  Matthew  xviii.,  33, 
"  Shouldest  not  thou  also  have  had  comjyassion  {iXeiirrai)  on 
thy  fellow-servant,  even  as  I  hadpiVy  {nXirjaa)  on  thee ;"  or  in 
XX.,  20, "  Then  came  to  him  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children 
(vlwy)  with  her  S072S  {vlCjv) ;"  or  in  xxv.,  32, "He  shall  separate 


ARTIFICIAL  DISTINCTIONS  CREATED. 


47 


{a<popLEi)  them  one  from  another,  as  a  shepherd  divideth  (a^opt- 
4£()  his  sheep  from  the  goats  ?"  Why,  in  St.  John  xvi.,  1, 4,  6, 
should  ravra  XeXaXijica  vfuv  be  rendered  in  three  different  ways 
in  the  same  paragrajjh :  "  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto 
you,"  "These  things  have  I  told  you,"  "I  have  said  these 
things  unto  you ;"  or  St.  Thomas  be  made  to  say,  "JPut  my 
finger,"  and  '■^Thrust  my  hand,"  in  the  same  verse,  though 
the  same  Greek  word  /3a\w  stands  for  both  (xx,,  25)  ?  Why 
again,  in  the  Acts  (xxvi.,  24,  25),  should  Festus  cry,  "Paul, 
thou  art  beside  thyself"  (i^airri,  UavXi),  and  St. Paul  reply,  "I 
am  not  7nad,  most  noble  Festus"  {ov  ^aivo^ai,  tcpanaTe  ^ijaTe)  ? 
Why,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (x.,  15),  should  ol  ttoceq  twv 
thayytXilo^ivuv  eipriprji',  tCjv  ei/ayytXti^o/xu'wv  ra  ayada  be  trans- 
lated "  the  feet  of  them  that  preach  the  Gospel  of  peace,  and 
bring  glad  tidings  of  good  things  ?"  Why,  in  the  same  epis- 
tle (xv.,  4,  5),  should  we  read,"  That  we  through  patience  and 
comfort  of  the  Scriptures  (^la  ri]Q  virofJoyriQ  Kal  rug  TrapaKXrjffEwe 
rm>  ypatpQi')  should  have  hope,"  and  in  the  next  sentence, 
"Now  the  God  of  patience  and  consolation  (6  Qeog  t^q  uTro/io- 
rijg  Kal  riig  TrapaKXi'iaEwg)  grant  you  to  be  like  minded,"  though 
the  words  are  identical  in  the  two  clauses,  and  the  repetition 
is  obviously  intended  by  St. Paul?  And  why  again,  in  the 
salutations  at  the  end  of  this  epistle,  as  also  of  others,  should 
iianacraffde  be  translated  now  "  salute"  and  now  "  greet,"  the 
two  renderings  being  interchanged  capriciously  and  without 
any  law  ?  Again,  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  iii., 
17,  the  same  word  (pQdpnv  is  differently  translated, "  If  any 
man  defile  {(pdelpei)  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall  God  destroy 
(^0f|O£t),"  though  the  force  of  the  passage  depends  on  the  iden- 
tity of  the  sin  and  the  punishment.  And  in  a  later  passage 
(x.,  16  seq.),  KOLvwyol  rod  Bvaiaarripiov  is  translated  '"'' partakers 
of  the  altar,"  and  two  verses  below,  kolvu>vo\  twv  cai^oj't'wv, 
'''•\i?i\Q,  fellowship  with  devils,"  while  (to  complete  the  confu- 
sion) in  a  preceding  and  a  succeeding  verse  the  rendering  "be 
partaTcers'"'  is  assigned  to  ixt-iytiv^  and  in  the  same  paragraph 
Koivwvia  Tov  a'tfiaroc,  -ov  awfxarog,  is  translated  "  commimion  of 

G 


48      LIGUTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

the  blood,  of  the  "body,"  The  exigencies  of  the  English  might 
demand  some  slight  variation  of  rendering  here,  but  this  ut- 
ter confusion  is  certainly  not  required ;  and  yet  this  passage 
is  only  a  sample  of  what  occurs  in  numberless  other  places. 
Again,  in  the  same  epistle  (xii.,  4  seq.),  it  is  not  easy  to  see 
why  ciaipi(T£iQ  ■)(apirrfxaTU)i',  ciaipicretg  oiakoviuii',  SiaipeffEig  eyepyrifxa- 
Twv,  are  translated  respectively  ^'diversities  of  gifts,"  '^ differ- 
ences  of  administration,"  '"''  diversities  of  operations,"  while  in 
the  same  passage  ivepytj^a-a  is  rendered  first  operations  and 
then  worJcing.  Each  time  I  read  the  marvelous  episode  on 
charity  in  the  xiiith  chapter,  I  feel  with  increased  force  the 
inimitable  delicacy,  and  beauty,  and  sublimity  of  the  render- 
ing, till  I  begin  to  doubt  Avhether  the  English  language  is  not 
a  better  vehicle  than  even  the  Greek  for  so  lofty  a  theme ; 
yet  even  here  I  find  some  blemishes  of  this  kind.  Thus,  in 
the  8th  verse,  the  same  English  word  "  fail"  is  given  as  a  ren- 
dering for  both  iKTrLirTiu'  and  KaTcipyuirdcu,  while  conversely  the 
same  Greek  word  Ka-apyeladai  is  translated  first  by  fail  and 
then  by  vanisJi  aioay,  and  two  vei'ses  afterward,  where  it  oc- 
curs again,  by  a  third  expression,  be  done  aioay.  This  word 
KaTapytiv  is  translated  with  the  same  latitude  later  on  also 
(xv.,  24,  26),  "When  he  shall  have  ^jz^^  down  (compyf/ffj;)  all 
rule,  and  all  authority,  and  power,"  and  immediately  after- 
ward, "The  last  enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  {ka-apyelTai) 
is  death."  Let  me  add  another  instance  from  this  epistle,  for 
it  is  perhaps  the  most  characteristic  of  all.  In  xv.,  27,  28, 
the  word  vwotcktcteiv  occurs  six  times  in  the  same  sense  within 
two  verses ;  in  the  first  three  places  it  is  rendered  x>'^i  under, 
in  the  fourth  be  subdued,  in  the  fifth  be  subject,  while  in  tlie 
last  place  the  translators  return  again  to  their  first  rendering 
put  under.  Nay,  even  the  simple  word  Xoyla,  when  it  occurs 
in  successive  verses  (xvi.,1,  2),  has  a  different  rendering,  first 
"  collection"  and  then  "  gathering." 

The  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is  especially  remark- 
able for  the  recurrence,  through  whole  sentences  or  para- 
graphs, of  the  same  word  or  words,  which  thus  strike  tlie 


ARTIFICIAL  DISTINCTIONS  CREATED. 


49 


key-note  to  the  passage.  This  fact  is  systematically  disre- 
garded by  our  translators,  who,  imjaressed  with  the  desire  of 
producing  what  they  seem  to  have  regarded  as  an  agreeable 
variety,  failed  to  see  that  in  such  cases  monotony  is  force. 
Thus,  in  the  first  chapter,  the  words  TrapaKoXe'iy,  TrajorkX/jo-tc, 
and  0X//3f£j',  6Xi\pic,  occur  again  and  again.  In  the  rendering 
of  the  first  our  translators  are  divided  between  comfort  and 
consolation.,  and  of  the  second  between  tribulation.,  troitUe, 
and  affliction.  Again,  in  the  opening  of  the  second  chapter, 
where  the  tone  is  given  to  the  paragraph  by  the  frequent 
repetition  of  Xuttj/,  Xvirfiy,  Ave  have  three  distinct  renderings, 
heaviness,  sorrmc,  grief.  Again,  in  the  third  chapter,  several 
instances  of  this  fault  occur.  In  the  first  verse  this  passion 
for  variety  is  curiously  illustrated.  They  render  ava-aTiKCJv 
tnitjToKCjv  irpuQ  vfxaq  »*/  il  v/jiuii'  avaraTiKCjv  by  '"''Epistles  of  com- 
mendation to  you  or  letters  of  commendation  from  you,"  where 
even  in  supplying  a  word  (which  were  better  left  out  alto- 
gether) they  make  a  change,  though  in  the  original  the  ad- 
jectives refer  to  the  same  substantive.  In  this  same  chapter, 
again,  they  hover  between  sufficient  and  able  as  a  rendering 
of  kavdc,  tcaj'our,  'u:av6-i\c.  (ver.  5, 6),  while  later  on  they  inter- 
change abolish  and  done  aicay  for  KarapyElfrdai  (ver.  7,13,14), 
and  fail  to  preserve  the  connection  of  uvaKEKaXvfijiei'M  (ver.  18) 
with  cciXv/jjua  (ver.  13  seq.)  and  avaKakvTrTOjjLtvov  (ver.  14)  and 
of  KEKuXvfinivov  (iv.,  3)  with  all  three.  Again,  in  the  fifth  c\\?i^- 
ter,  hcrineiv  is  rendered  in  the  same  context  to  be  at  home  and 
to  be  2>'>'csent  (ver.  6,  8,  9),  where  the  former  rendering,  more- 
over, in  ver.  6,  obscures  the  direct  opposition  to  £/;^j?/i£7j',.thi8 
last  w'ord  being  rendered  throughout  to  be  absent;  and  a  little 
later  (A'er.  10),  tovq  Trav-aq  jji-uiq  (paj'Epudfji'ai,  k.t.X.,  is  translated 
"We  must  all  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ," 
where,  independently  of  the  fatal  objection  that  appear  gives 
a  Avi'ong  sense  (for  the  context  lays  stress  on  the  tnanifesta- 
tion  of  men's  true  characters  at  the  great  day),  this  rendei'- 
ing  is  still  further  faulty,  as  severing  the  connection  with 
what  follows  immediately  (ver.  11),  "We  are  made  manifest 


50      LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FEESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

{■rrtcpavepujutQa)  uuto  God,  and  I  trust  also  are  made  manifest 
{7re(j)a}'£pw(TdaL)  in  your  consciences."  Again,  in  vii.,  7,  conso- 
lati07i  and  comfort  are  once  more  interchanged  for  TrapafcaXeli', 
7ra/jc(k-X7?<rte ;  in  viii.,10, 11, 12,  to  deXeii'  is  translated  to  he  for- 
icard  and  to  loill,  and  TrpoQvjiia  readiness  and  «  willing  mind 
in  successive  verses;  in  ix.,  2,  3,  4,  5,  ready  and  prepared  are 
both  employed  in  rendering  TrapEtrKEvaarai,  TrapEcrKevatTfiepoi,  otTra- 
pcKTKevaaTovQ,  while  conversely  the  single  expression  "be  ready" 
is  made  to  represent  both  TrapecrKevaar-ai  and  holi-iriy  elrai ;  in 
X.,  13,15,16,  k-avwj',  after  being  twice  translated  rule,  is  varied 
in  the  third  passage  by  line  ;  in  xi.,  16, 17, 18,  the  rendering 
of  fcavxacrdai,  Kavxn<Tic,  is  diversified  by  boast  and  ffloiy  ;  and 
in  xii.,  2,  3, ok-  oT^a,  6  0£oe  olcer,  is  twice  translated  "I  can  not 
tell,  God  knoiceth^''  while  elsewhei-e  in  these  same  verses  oua 
is  rendered  "  I  Jcneic^^  and  ovk  olca,  "  I  ca7i  not  telV  This  re- 
pugnance to  repeating  the  same  word  for  olZa  has  a  parallel 
in  John  xvi.,  30,  where  vvv  o'lla^tv  on  ollag  ttuvtu  is  given, 
"Now  are  ice  sure  that  thou  hiowest  all  things." 

Nor  is  there  any  improvement  in  the  later  books,  as  the  fol- 
lowing instances,  taken  almost  at  random  from  a  very  large 
number  which  might  havebeen  adduced,  will  show :  Phil,  ii., 
13,"  It  is  God  which  xoorketh  {ivipyutv)  in  you  both  to  will  and 
to  do  {irtpytiv) ;"  Phil,  iii.,  3  sq.,  "  And  have  no  confidence  {oh 
TrenoidoTeg)  in  the  flesh ;  Though  I  might  also  have  confidence 
(exwr  ■KfKo'Sy]aiv)  in  the  flesh ;  If  any  other  man  thinketh  that 
he  hath  Avhereof  Ae  might  trust  [coKei  TZEiroiQivai)  in  the  flesh, I 
more  .'.  .  as  touching  the  laAV  (vara  vo^ov),  a  Pharisee;  con- 
cerning zeal  (KaTCL  lr\koq),  persecuting  the  Church ;  touching 
the  righteousness  (m-a  ^iKaiocrvvriy)  which  is  in  the  law,  blame- 
less;" 1  Thess.  ii.,4,  "As  we  were  allowed  {hloKinaaiitQa)  of 
God  ...  not  as  pleasing  men,  but  God,  which  trieth  {coKifxa- 
^ovTi)  our  hearts ;"  2  Thess.  i.,  6,  "To  recompense  trihulatio7i  to 
them  that  trouble  you"  {iiVTairolovvai.  toTc  dXlfDovaiy  vfidQ  dXixpiv)  ; 
Heb.  viii.,  13, "He  hath  made  the  first  old  {TreiraXalwKev  njy  Trpw- 
rrjv) ;  now  that  which  decayeth  (TraXaiovfierov)  and  loaxeth  old 
(yripdtTKov)  is  ready  to  vanish  away ;"  James  ii.,  2, 3, "  If  there 


ARTIFICIAL  DISTn\CTIOXS  CREATED.  51 

cotne  (EiffiXdri)  unto  your  assembly  a  man  with  a  gold  ring  in 
goodly  apparel  {iv  IcrdriTi  XafXTrpa),  and  there  come  in  (elcriXdr]) 
also  a  poor  man  in  vile  raime7it  {iadfjri),  and  ye  have  respect 
to  him  that  weareth  the  gay  clothing  (ri)i'  iadriru  ti)v  XanTrpui'), 
etc. ;"  2  Pet.  ii.,  1,  3,  "Who  jDrivily  shall  bring  in  ckonnable  her- 
esies (alpiarsiQ  aTruXdag)  .  .  .  and  bring  on  themselves  swift 
destruction  {cnvwXeiar)  .  .  .  and  their  damnatio7i  (aTrwXem) 
slumbereth  not ;"  1  John  v.,  9, 10,"  This  is  the  witness  (fiap-v- 
pla)  of  God  which  he  hath  testified  {jie^iapTvpTrfKEv)  of  his  Son 
.  .  .  He  believeth  not  the  record  (ixaprvplay)  that  God  gave 
{fxenaprvprjKsp)  of  his  Son;"  Rev.  i.,  15, "His  voice  {(pwyij)  as  the 
sound  {(pui't))  of  many  waters;"  iii.,  1*7, "I  am  rich  (TrXovaioc) 
and  increased  in  goods  {TreTrXovrrjm) ;"  xvii.,  6,  7,"  And  when  I 
saw  her,  I  loondered  {edav/jiacra)  with  great  admiration  (Sav^a) ; 
and  the  angel  said  unto  me,  Wherefore  didst  thou  marvel 
{t6avf.ta(7ag) :"  xviii.,  2,  "  And  the  hold  {(pvXaK)))  of  every  foul 
spirit,  and  a  cage  {fvXaK)))  of  every  unclean  and  hateful  bird." 
In  the  instances  hitherto  given  the  variation  of  rendering 
is  compai'atively  unimportant,  but  for  this  very  reason  they 
serve  well  to  illustrate  the  wrong  principle  on  which  our  trans- 
lators proceeded.  In  such  cases,  no  more  serious  consequences 
may  result  than  a  loss  of  point  and  force ;  but  elsewhere  the 
injury  done  to  the  understanding  of  the  passage  is  graver. 
Thus,  Avhen  the  English  reader  finds  in  St. Matthew  xxv.,  46, 
"These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  {aloM'ioy)  punishment, 
but  the  righteous  into  life  eternal  (atwj'ioj'),"  he  is  led  to  spec- 
ulate on  the  difference  of  meaning  between  "  everlasting"  and 
"  eternal,"  if  he  happens  to  have  any  slight  acquaintance  with 
modern  controversy,  and  he  will  most  probably  be  led  to  a 
wrong  conclusion  by  observing  different  epithets  used,  more 
especially  as  the  antithesis  of  the  clauses  helps  to  emphasize 
the  difference.  Or  take  instances  where  the  result  will  not 
be  misunderstanding,  but  non-understanding.  Thus,  in  the 
apocalyptic  passage  2  Thess.  ii.,  6,  7,"  And  now  ye  know  what 
icithholdeth  {to  mrEx^j')  .  .  .  only  he  who  now  letteth  (6  Kori- 
Xwv  apTi)  will  let,"  the  same  word  should  certainly  have  been 


.52      LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  BEVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

repeated,  that  the  identity  of  the  thing  signified  might  be 
clear;  and  in  the  doctrinal  statement, Col.  ii.,  9, 10, "In  him 
dwelleth  all  the  fullness  (to  irXijpufia)  of  the  Godhead  bodily, 
and  ye  are  complete  {iT£n\ripu)nu'oi)  in  him,"  it  was  still  more 
necessary  to  preserve  the  connection  by  a  similar  rendering, 
for  the  main  idea  of  the  second  clause  is  the  communication 
of  the  7rX//|3w/ta  which  resides  in  Christ  to  the  believers  (comj), 
Ephes.  i.,23).  Again,  the  word  Qpuvoq  in  the  Revelation  is 
translated  throne  when  it  refers  to  our  Lord,  but  seat  when  it 
refers  to  the  faithful  (iv.,  4 ;  xi.,  16*)  or  when  it  refers  to  Sa- 
tan (ii.,  13  ;  xvi.,  10).  Now  by  this  variation,  as  Archbishoi) 
Trench  has  pointed  out,f  two  great  ideas  which  run  through 
this  Book,  and  indeed,  we  may  say,  through  the  whole  of  the 
New  Testament,  are  obliterated ;  the  one,  that  the  true  serv- 
ants of  Christ  are  crowned  with  him  and  share  his  sovereign- 
ty;  the  other,  that  the  antagonism  of  the  Prince  of  Darkness 
to  the  Prince  of  Light  develops  itself  in  "  the  hellish  parody 
of  the  heavenly  kingdom."  And  in  other  passages,  again,  the 
connection  between  difierent  parts  of  the  same  discourse  or 
the  same  narrative  is  severed.  Thus,  in  St.Luke  xix.,  13, 15, 
the  nobleman,  going  into  a  far  country,  gives  charge  to  his 
servants  TrpayfiarEvaaadE  kv  w  'ipy^ojiai,  and.  Avhen  he  re- 
turns he  summons  them  'iva  yiy  {or  yjot]  rig  tl  ciETrpa-yfxarEv- 
(javTo.  If  the  former  had  been  translated, "7'/'«c?e  ye  till  I 
come,"  it  would  then  have  corresponded  to  the  nobleman's 
subsequent  demand  of  them  to  "  know  how  much  each  man 
had  gained  by  tradingP  But  the  rendering  of  our  transla- 
tors," Occz^/??/  till  I  come,"  besides  involving  a  somewhat  un- 
intelligible archaism,  disconnects  the  two,  and  the  first  indi- 
cation which  the  English  reader  gets  that  the  servants  were 
expected  to  employ  the  money  in  trade  is  when  the  master  at 
length  comes  to  reckon  with  them.  Another  instance,  where 
the  connection  is  not,  indeed,  wholly  broken  (for  the  context 
will  not  suffer  this),  but  greatly  impaired,  is  Matt,  v.,  15, 16, 

*  Eev.  iv.,  4,  "And  round  the  throne  (Qpovov)  were  four-and-twenty  seats 
(Bpovoi)."  t  On  the  Authorized  Version,  p.  80  seq. 


ARTIFICIAL  DISTIXCTIOXS  CREATED.  53 

XafXTrei  T>u.(nv  rote  £''  ti]  o'lKiq.'  o'utwq  Xa/.ii^arw  to  (f)U)Q  i/yuwj'  inTrpoffdei' 
rwv  aySpwTTWj',  which  should  run,  "It  shineth  upon  all  that  arc 
in  the  house :  Even  so  let  your  light  shine  before  men,  etc." 
But  in  our  translation, "It  giveth  light  unto  all  that  are  in  the 
house  :  Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men  that  they  may  see 
your  good  works,  etc.,"  the  two  sentences  are  detached  from 
each  other  by  the  double  error  of  rendering  Xctfirret,  Xa//i//arw  by 
different  words,  and  of  misunderstanding  outojc.  I  say  "  misun- 
derstanding," because  the  alternative  that  "  so"  is  a  mere  am- 
biguity of  expression  seems  to  be  precluded  by  the  fact  that 
in  our  Communion  Service  the  words  "Let  your  light  so  shine 
before  men,  etc.,"  detached  from  their  context,  are  chosen  as 
the  initial  sentence  at  the  Offertory,  where  the  correct  mean- 
ing, "  in  like  manner,"  could  not  stand. 

This  love  of  variety  might  be  still  further  illustrated  by 
their  treatment  of  the  comjyonent  imrts  of  words.  Thus  there 
is  no  reason  why  iroXv^ipwQ  koX  iroXvrpoTrwg  in  Heb.  i.,  1,  should 
be  translated  "  At  sundry  times  and  in  clivers  manners,"  even 
though  for  want  of  a  better  word  we  should  allow  the  very 
inadequate  rendering  times  to  pass  muster,  where  the  original 
points  to  the  daw evs,  parts  of  one  great  comprehensive  scheme. 
And  again,  in  Mark  xii.,  39  (comp.  Matt,  xxiii.,6),  it  is  equally 
difficult  to  see  why  Trpu)-ot:adeCpiae  iv  Toig  (Tvyayioyalg  teal  Trpoj- 
TOKXimag  iv  Tolg  ceiKi'oig  should  be  rendered  "  the  chief  seats  in 
the  synagogues  and  the  iipjyermost  rooms  at  feasts."  On  the 
archaic  rendering  "room"  for  the  second  element  in  Trpwro/cXt- 
o-ta  I  shall  have  something  to  say  hereafter. 

These  instances  which  have  been  given  will  suffice.  But, 
in  fict,  examples  illustrating  this  misconception  of  a  transla- 
tor's duty  are  sown  broadcast  over  our  New  Testament,  so 
that  there  is  scarcely  a  page  without  one  or  more.  It  is  due 
to  our  translators,  however,  to  say,  that  in  many  cases  which 
I  have  examined  they  only  perpetuated  and  did  not  intro- 
duce the  error,  which  may  often  be  traced  to  Tyndale  himself, 
from  whom  our  version  is  ultimately  derived ;  and  in  some  in- 
stances his  variations  are  even  greater  than  theirs.     Thus,  in 


54      LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

a  passage  already  quoted,  1  Cor.  xii.,  4  seq,,lie  has  three  dif- 
ferent renderings  of  ciatpiaEig  in  the  three  successive  clauses 
where  they  have  only  two :  "  Ther  are  diversities  of  gyftes 
verely,  yet  but  one  sprete,  and  ther  are  differences  of  admin- 
istration and  yet  but  one  lorde,  and  ther  are  divers  maners 
of  operacions  and  yet  but  one  God;"  and  in  Rom.  xvi.,his  in- 
terchanges of  "  salute"  and  "  greet"  are  still  more  frequent 
than  theirs.  Of  all  the  English  versions  the  Rhemish  alone 
has  paid  attention  to  this  point,  and  so  far  compares  advan- 
tageously with  the  rest,  to  which  in  most  other  respects  it  is 
confessedly  inferior.  And  I  suppose  that  the  words  of  our 
Translators'  Preface,  in  which  they  attempt  to  justify  their 
course,  must  refer  indirectly  to  this  Roman  Catholic  Version, 
more  especially  as  I  find  that  its  Latinisms  are  censured  in 
the  same  paragraph.  If  so,  it  is  to  be  regretted  that  preju- 
dice should  have  blinded  them  to  a  consideration  of  some 
importance. 

But  not  only  is  it  necessary  to  preserve  the  same  word  in 
the  same  context  and  in  the  same  book;  equal  care  should 
be  taken  to  secure  uniformity  where  it  occurs  in  the  same 
connection  in  different  passages  and  different  books.  Thus, 
where  quotations  are  given  once  or  more  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  New,  the  rendering  should  exhibit  (as  far  as  pos- 
sible) the  exact  coincidence  with  or  divergence  from  the 
original  and  one  another  in  the  language.  Again,  when  the 
same  discourses  or  the  same  incidents  are  recorded  by  differ- 
ent evangelists,  it  is  especially  important  to  reproduce  the 
features  of  the  original,  neither  obliterating  nor  creating  dif- 
ferences. Again,  in  parallel  passages  in  allied  epistles,  as,  for 
instance,  those  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians,  or  to 
the  Colossians  and  Ephesians,  or  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude  and 
the  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  the  exact  amount  of  resem- 
blance should  be  reproduced,  because  questions  of  date  and 
authenticity  are  affected  thereby.  Again,  in  the  writings 
which  claim  the  same  authorship,  as,  for  instance,  the  Gospel 
and  Epistles  and  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John,  the  similarity 


ARTIFICIAL  DISTINCTIONS  CREATED.  55 

of  diction  should  be  preserved.  Though  this  Avill  be  a  sorae- 
■\vhat  laborious  task,  let  us  hope  that  our  new  revisers  will 
exercise  constant  vigilance  in  this  matter.  As  the  authors 
of  our  Received  Version  allowed  themselves  so  much  license 
in  the  same  context,  it  is  no  surprise  that  they  did  not  pay 
any  attention  to  these  coincidences  of  language  which  occur 
in  separate  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  which  did  not, 
therefore,  force  themselves  on  their  notice. 

Of  their  mode  of  dealing  with  quotations  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, one  or  two  instances  will  suffice  by  way  of  illustra- 
tion, 

Deut,  xxxii.,  35  is  twice  quoted  in  exactly  the  same  words. 
In  our  English  Version  it  appears  in  these  two  forms : 

Rom.  xii.,  1 9.  Heb.  x.,  30. 

Vengeance  is  mine:  I  will  Vengeance  belongeth  unto 
repay,  saith  the  Lord.  me,  I  will  recompense,  saith 

the  Lord. 

Again,  the  same  words,  Gen.  xv.,  6  (LXX.),  eXoyladr)  au-w 
Etc  ciicaiocTvvrji',  are  given  with  these  variations:  Rom.  iv.,  3, 
"It  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness;"  Rora,iv.,22,  "It 
was  imjnUed  unto  him  for  righteousness ;"  Gal.  iii.,  6,  "  It  was 
accounted  to  him  for  righteousness"  (with  a  marginal  note, 
"  or  imputed'''') ;  James  ii.,  23,  "  It  was  im2Mted  to  him  for 
righteousness ;"  while  in  an  indirect  reference  to  it,  Rom.  iv., 
9  (in  the  immediate  context  of  two  of  these  divergent  I'ender- 
ings),  a  still  further  vai'iation  is  introduced :  "  We  say  that 
faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteousness." 

Again,  caXuv//£i  TrXfjOog  cifxap-iwy  (from  Prov.  x.,  12)  is  trans- 
lated in  James  v.,  20,  "  shall  hide  a  multitude  of  sins,"  and  in 
1  Pet.  iv.,  8,  "  shall  cover  the  multitude  of  sins"  (with  a  mar- 
ginal reading  "  will"  for  "  shall"). 

The  variation  in  the  last  instance  which  I  shall  give  is  still 
more  astonishing,  because  the  two  quotations  of  the  same 
passage  (Psa.  xcv.,  11)  occur  in  the  same  context. 


5(5      LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 


Heb.  iii.,11.  Heb.  iv.,  3. 

So  I  sware  in  my   wrath,  As  I  have   sioorn   in    my 

They  shall  not  enter  into  my  wrath,  i/";/(ey  shall  enter  into 

rest.  my  rest. 

Here  there  is  absolutely  no  difference  in  the  Greek  of  the 
two  passages;  and,  as  the  argument  is  continuous,  no  justifi- 
cation of  the  various  renderings  can  be  imagined. 

On  the  parallel  narratives  of  the  different  evangelists  it 
will  not  be  necessary  to  dwell,  because  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject has  been  discussed  at  some  length  elsewhere.*  I  will 
content  myself  with  three  examples.  The  first,  which  affects 
only  the  diction,  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  defects  of  our  ver- 
sion in  this  respect,  because  it  is  in  no  way  striking  or  excep- 
tional. 

Matt,  xvi.,  26.       |      Mark  viii.,  36.       I        Luke  ix.,  25. 
Tt    yap    w^EXtlrai         Tiy'upCjptkijGu  av-\      TiyhpCxptKuraiav- 
avOpuTTOc^iav  Tuy  KoiT- IdpioTToy,   kav    Kepcijerrj  i  6pti)Troc,  KepcljaaQ   toi' 


fiov  6\ov  KtpZljffri,  Tt)v 

he  i/'UX''''  '^^'''^^  'T'JA"" 
wdrj ; 

"For  what  is  a 
man  profited,  if  he 
shall  gain  the  whole 
world  and  lose  his 
own  soul  ?" 


Toy  KOfffioy  oXov,  nal 
i^r]fii(od>i  T)iv  \pv)(^i)y 
avTOu ; 

"For  what  shall 
it  profit  a  man,  if  he 
shall  gain  the  whole 
woi'ld  and  lose  his 
own  soul  ?" 


Koa/jioy  oXoy,  savroy  he 
ciTioXeaag  f/  i^rj^nodslc'f 
"For  what  is  a 
man  advantaged,  if 
he  gain  the  whole 
world,  and  lose  him- 
self,   or     be     cast 

■9" 


away 

Here  the  coincidences  and  divergences  of  the  first  two  evan- 
gelists are  fairly  preserved,  but  the  relations  of  the  third  to 
either  are  wholly  confused  or  obliterated. 

My  second  example  shall  be  of  a  different  kind,  where  the 
variation  introduced  affects  not  the  expression  only,  but  the 
actual  interpretation. 

In  the  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  sower  in  St.  Mark 

*  See,  for  instance,  Dean  Alford's  By-ways  of  New  Testament  Criticism, 
Contemporary  Review,  July,  18G8. 


ARTIFICIAL  DISTINCTIONS  CHEATED.  57 

iv.,16,  OL  iTTi  TO.  Trerpcjci]  (nreipufieyoi  is  pvoj)erly  translated  "they 
which  are  soion  on  stony  ground,"  and  the  corresponding  ex- 
pressions are  treated  similarly;  but  in  St. Matthew  xiii.,  20, 
6  iirl  TCI  TTETpujCT]  GiraptiQ  becomes  "He  that  received  the  seed  into 
stony  places,"  where  (besides  minor  variations)  the  person  is 
substituted  for  the  seed,  and  the  corresponding  expressions 
throughout  the  parable  are  manipulated  similarly  in  defiance 
of  grammar.  This  rendering  is  unhappy  on  many  accounts. 
Besides  making  the  evangelists  say  different  things,  it  has 
the  still  further  disadvantage  that  it  destroys  one  main  idea 
in  the  parable,  the  identification  (for  the  purposes  of  the  par- 
able) of  the  seed  when  sow?i  icith  the  person  himself  so  that 
the  life,  and  growth,  and  decay  of  the  one  are  coincident  with 
the  life,  and  growth,  and  decay  of  the  other.  The  form  of 
expression  in  St.  Luke  (viii.,  14,  to  he.  dc  tuq  uKavdag  tteo-oj'  oiiroi 
tlaiv  01  aKo'-aavTEQ)  brings  out  this  identity  more  prominently; 
but  it  is  expressed  not  obscurely  in  the  other  evangelists,  and 
should  not  have  been  obliterated  by  our  translators  in  one 
of  them  through  an  ungrammatical  paraphrase. 

My  third  example  concerns  the  treatment  of  a  single  word. 
In  the  account  of  the  scenes  preceding  the  Crucifixion,  men- 
tion is  made  of  a  certain  building  which  by  three  of  the  evan- 
gelists is  called  irpaiTwpiov.  In  St.  Matthew  (xxvii.,  27)  it  is 
translated  "common-hall,"  with  a  marginal  alternative  "gov- 
ernor's house;"  in  St.  John  (xviii,,  28,  33;  xix.,  9),  "hall  of 
judgment"  and  "judgment-hall,"  with  a  marginal  alterna- 
tive, "  Pilate's  house,"  in  the  first  passage ;  while  in  St.  Mark 
(xv.,  16)  it  is  reproduced  in  the  English  as  "  praetorium."  It 
should  be  added  that  this  same  word,  when  it  occurs  in  the 
same  sense,  though  referring  to  a  different  locality,  in  Acts 
xxiii.,  35,  is  rendered  "judgment-hall,"  though  a  "judgment- 
hall"  would  obviously  be  an  unfit  place  to  keep  a  prisoner  in 
ward;  and  again,  in  Phil,  i.,  13,  iv  oXto  -w  irpai-iopib)  (where 
probably  it  signifies  the  "  praetorian  army,"  but  where  our 
English  translators  have  taken  it  to  mean  another  such  build- 
ing), it  appears  as  "  palace."     This  last  rendering  might  very 


58      LIOHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  X.  TEST. 

properly  have  been  adopted  in  all  the  passages  in  the  Gos- 
pels and  Acts,  as  adequately  expressing  the  meaning. 

So,  also,  in  those  epistles  which  are  allied  to  each  other,* 
the  treatment  of  identical  words  and  expressions  is  neither 
hiorc  nor  less  unsatisfactory  than  in  the  Gospels. 

In  the  instances  already  given,  though  there  may  be  differ- 
ences of  opinion  as  to  the  importance  of  the  subject,  all  prob- 
ably will  agree  on  the  main  point,  that  it  is  advisable  to  pre- 
serve uniformity  of  rendering.  The  illustration  which  I  shall 
,  next  select  is  more  open  to  criticism ;  and  as  Archbishop 
Trench,  and  Dean  Alford,  and  the  Five  Clergymen  all  take  a 
different  view  from  my  own,f  I  can  hardly  hope  that  my  ar- 
gument will  carry  general  conviction.  Yet  the  case  seeriis 
to  be  strong.  I  refer  to  the  translation  of  7ra/yckX7jroe  in  the 
Gospel  and  in  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John.  In  the  former  it 
is  consistently  translated  Comforter  (xiv.,  16,  26 ;  xv.,  26 ;  xvi., 
7),  while  in  the  one  passage  where  it  occurs  in  the  latter  (ii., 
1)  the  rendering  Advocate  is  adopted.  Is  there  sufficient 
reason  for  this  difference  ?  No  one,  probably,  would  wish  to 
alter  the  word  "  Advocate"  in  the  Epistle,  for  the  expressions 
in  the  context,  "  with  the  Father,"  "  Jesus  Christ  the  right- 
eous (o/catoi'),"  "a  ijropitiation  for  our  sins,"  fix  the  sense,  so 
that  the  passage  presents  a  sufficiently  close  parallel  with  the 
common  forensic  language  of  St. Paul  (e.g.,  Rom.  iii,,  24-26). 
But  why  should  the  same  word  be  rendered  "  Comforter"  in 
the  Gospel?  Now  I  think  it  may  fairly  be  maintained, ^rs^, 
that  the  Avord  irapaKXriTog  in  itself  means  "Advocate,"  and  can 
not  mean  "  Comforter ;"  and,  secondly^  that  the  former  ren- 
dering is  more  appropriate  to  the  context  in  all  the  passages 
in  which  it  occurs. 

*  See  Blunt's  Duties  of  the  Parish  Priest,  p.  71  ;  Ellicott's  Revision  of  the 
English  New  Testament,  p.  101. 

t  To  the  same  effect  also  writes  Archdeacon  Hare,  Mission  of  the  Com- 
forter, Note  J,  p.  523:  "At  present,  so  many  sacred  associations  have  con- 
nected themselves  for  generation  after  generation  with  the  name  of  the  Com- 
forter, that  it  would  seem  something  like  an  act  of  sacrilege  to  change  it," 
Yet  he  agrees  substantially  with  the  view  of  the  meaning  which  I  have  main- 
tained in  the  text. 


ARTIFICIAL  DISTIXCTIONS  CREATED.  59 

On  the  first  point — tlie  meaning  of  the  word — usage  ap- 
pears to  be  decisive.  It  commonly  signifies  "  one  who  is  sum- 
moned to  the  side  of  another  (TrajoacaXftrcu)"  to  aid  him  in  a 
court  of  justice,  and  more  jjarticularly  "  an  advocate"  or  "a 
pleader,"  being  applied  especially  to  the  "  counsel  for  the  de- 
fense f"^  nor,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  does  it  ever  bear  any  other 
sense,  except  perhaps  in  some  later  ecclesiastical  writers  Avhose 
language  has  been  influenced  by  a  false  interpretation  of  these 
passages  in  St.  John.  In  other  words  irapaicXrjToc  is  passive,  not 
active ;  one  who  TrapaKoXelrat,  not  one  who  irapaKoXel. ',  one  who 
"  is  summoned  to  plead  a  cause,"  not  one  who  "  exhorts,  or  en- 
courages, or  comforts."  Nor,  indeed,  if  we  compare  the  sim- 
ple word  kXyitoq  and  the  other  compounds  aj'a/cX??roc,  ty/cXjjroc, 
tKicXr]Toe,  fVkXrj-oe,  (nyKXr^rog,  etc.,  or  if  we  observe  the  general 
rule  afiecting  adjectives  similarly  formed  from  transitive 
verbs,  does  it  seem  easy  to  assign  an  active  sense  to  Traptk-Xr^- 
Tog.  Yet  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  rendering  "  Com- 
forter" was  reached  by  attributing  this  active  force  to  Trapa- 
icXrjroQ,  and  that  therefore  it  arises  out  of  an  error ;  for  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  Paraclete,  is  again  and  again  explained  by  the 
fathers  as  one  who  TrapaKaXei,^  encourages  or  comforts  men; 
and  the  fact  that  even  Greek  writers  are  found  to  explain  the 

*  See  Hermann,  Griech.  Antiq.,  iii.,  §  142,  p.  320.  The  origin  of  this  sense 
is  illustrated  by  such  passages  as  JEschines  c.  Ctesiph.,  §  200,  kuI  t'i  £tl  ae  Atj- 
fioaOtvt]  TrapaKaXsiv ;  orav  5'  vTriprniSijaag  t))v  ciKaiav  c'tTroXoyiav  Ttapa- 
KaXyg  KOKOvpyov  uv9pu)7zov  Kai  Ti\viTr]v  \6ywv ,  KXeTrnig  rriv  aKp6a(!iv,K.T.\. 

t  So  Origen,  De  Princ,  ii.,  7  (i. ,  p.  93),  a  passage  which  unfortunately  is 
extant  only  in  the  Latin,  but  in  which  (if  correctly  represented)  Origen  takes 
7r«|oa/fX»j7-oc  both  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Epistle  in  an  active  sense,  explain- 
ing it,  how'ever,  consolator  in  the  Gospel  and  deprec.ator  in  the  Epistle.  See 
also  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Ca<ecA.,  xvi.,  20  (p.  255),  TrapaKK-qrog  ce  KoXtXrai  Std 
TO  TTapaicaXiip  Ka'i  TrapapvOuaOai  Kal  <rvvap-i\ai.il3dvtff9ai  riig  daOtvdag  y'mwv. 
And  many  of  the  Greek  fathers  explain  it  similarly.  The  fact  to.be  observed 
is,  that  even  in  the  Epistle,  where  it  manifestly  has  the  sense  "Advocate,  "they 
equally  derive  it  from  TrapoKaXni',  and  not  TrapaKaXuaGat,  thus  giving  it  an 
active  force,  whereas  the  passage  quoted  in  the  last  note  shows  that  the  mean- 
ing "Advocate"  is  not  to  be  derived  in  this  way.  The  Latin  fathers  gener- 
ally follow  the  old  Latin  "Advocatus;"  but  Hilary,  though  most  frequently 
giving  "Advocatus,."  yet  once,  at  least,  renders  it  "Consolator"  (in  Psalm. 
cxxv.,  i.,  p.  4G1). 


GO       LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FBESH  EEVISIOX  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

word  thus  is  the  only  substantial  argument  (so  far  as  I  know) 
which  has  been  brought  against  the  view  here  maintained. 
It  is  urged,  indeed,  that  the  word  "  Comforter,"  being  derived 
from  the  Latin  "  confortator,"  "  strengthener,"  and  therefore 
implying  something  more  than  "  comfort"  in  the  restricted 
sense  of  "consolation,"  adequately  represents  the  function  of 
the  7ra/3ckX7;roe,  who  thus  strengthens  the  cause  and  confirms 
the  courage  of  the  accused  at  the  bar  of  justice.  But  the  his- 
tory of  the  interpretation,  as  already  given,  shows  that  this 
rendering  was  not  reached  in  the  way  assumed, but  Avas  based 
on  a  grammatical  error,  and  therefore  this  account  can  only 
be  accepted  as  an  apology  after  the  fact,  and  not  as  an  ex- 
planation of  the  fact.  Moreover,  it  is  not  fair  translating  to 
substitute  a  subordinate  and  accidental  conception  for  the 
leading  sense  of  a  word.  And,  lastly,  whatever  may  be  the 
derivation  of  "Comforter,"  the  Avord  does  not  now  suggest 
this  idea  to  the  English  reader. 

But,  scco^ic?/?/,  if  "Advocate"  is  the  only  sense  which  irapa- 
K\r)TOQ  can  properly  bear,  it  is  also  (as  I  can  not  but  think)  the 
sense  Avhich  the  context  suggests  wherever  the  word  is  used 
in  the  Gospel.  In  other  words,  the  idea  of  pleading,  arguing, 
convincing,  instructing,  convicting,  is  prominent  in  every  in 
stance.*  Thus, in  xiv.,16  seq.,the  Paraclete  is  described  as 
the  "Spirit  of  truth'^  whose  reasonings  fall  dead  on  the  ear  of 
the  world,  and  are  vocal  only  to  the  faithful  (o  6  Koa-fioQ  oh  I'u- 
rarai  Xaf3eJy  .  .  .  vfxeiQ  ywwcrKETE  avro).  In  xiv,  26,  again,  the 
function  of  the  Paraclete  is  described  in  similar  language,  "He 
shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  remind  you  of  all  things."  In 
XV.,  26,  he  is  once  more  designated  the  "  Spirit  of  truth,"  and 
here  the  oiRce  assigned  to  him  is  to  hear  soilness  of  Christ. 
And,  lastly,  in  xvi.,  7  seq.,  the  idea  of  the^j/eacZer  appears  still 
more  definitely  in  the  context,  for  it  is  there  declared  that  "he 

*  In  xiv.,  1 8,  the  English  Version,  "  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless"  lends 
a  fictitious  aid  to  the  sense  "Comforter,"  to  which  the  original  ovk  d^>/(Tw  vnaq 
optpavovQ  gives  no  encouragement.  The  margin,  however,  offers  the  altern- 
ative ' '  orphans"  for  rp<pavovg. 


ARTIFICIAL  DISTIXCTIOXS  CREATED.  qj 

shall  convince"  or  "convict  {kXiyUi)  the  world  of  sin,  and  of 
righteousness,  and  of  judgment."  And  generally  it  may  be 
said  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Paraclete,  is  represented  in  these 
passages  as  the  Advocate,  the  Counsel,  who  suggests  true  rea- 
sonings to  our  minds  and  true  courses  of  action  for  our  lives, 
who  convicts  our  adversary  the  World  of  wrong,  and  pleads 
our  cause  before  God  our  Father.  In  short,  the  ct)nception 
(though  somewhat  more  comprehensive)  is  substantially  the 
same  as  in  St.  Paul's  language  when  describing  the  function 
of  the  Holy  Ghost:  "The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  Avith 
our  spirit  that  we  arc  children  of  God;"  "The  Spirit  helpeth 
our  infirmities;  for  Ave  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as 
we  ought,  but  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  us  with 
groanings  which  can  not  be  uttered  (Rom.  viii.,  16, 26.)" 

Thus,  whether  we  regard  the  origin  of  the  word,  or  wheth- 
er we  consider  the  requirements  of  the  context,*  it  would  seem 
that  "  Comforter"  should  give  way  to  "Advocate"  as  the  in- 

*  In  a  case  like  this  we  should  naturally  expect  tradition  to  aid  in  deter- 
mining the  correct  sense,  and  for  this  purpose  should  apply  to  the  earliest  ver- 
sions as  giving  it  in  its  best  authenticated  form  ;  but  in  the  instance  before  us 
they  do  not  render  as  much  assistance  as  usual.  (1.)  The  Old  Latin  seems 
certainly  to  have  had  Adcocatus  originally  in  all  the  four  passages  of  the  Gos- 
pel, as  also  in  the  passage  of  the  Epistle.  It  is  true  that  in  the  existing  texts 
Paracletus  (pv  Paraclitus)  occurs  iu  one  or  more  of  the  passages,  aird  in  some 
MSS.  in  the  others  ;  but  the  earliest  quotations  from  Tertullian  onward  must 
be  considered  decisive  on  this  point.  So  far,  therefore,  tradition  favors  the 
sense  which  I  am  maintaining.  Jerome  retained  the  Greek  word  "Paracle- 
tus" in  the  Gospel,  but  gave  "  Advocatus"  in  the  Epistle.  It  would  appear, 
however,  that  "  Paracletus"  had  already  displaced  "Advocatus"  in  some  pas- 
sages in  the  Gospel  in  one  or  more  of  the  many  texts  of  the  Old  Latin  which 
were  current  in  the  fourth  century.  (2.)  In  the  Si/riac  versions  the  Greek 
word  is  retained.  This  is  the  case  with  the  Curetonian  in  John  xiv.,  IG  (the 
only  passage  presened  in  this  version),  and  with  the  Peshito  throughout  in 
both  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle.  (3.)  In  the  Egyptian  versions  also  this  is 
generally  the  case.  In  the  Memphitic  -TrapaKXriTOQ  appears  in  all  the  passages. 
In  the  Thebaic  the  rendering  is  different  in  the  Gospels  and  in  the  Epistle. 
In  the  Epistle  it  is  given,  "One  that  prayeth  (entreateth)  for  (over)  us  ;"  but 
in  the  Gospel  (at  least  in  xiv. ,  IG  ;  xv. ,  2G)  the  Greek  word  is  retained.  These 
parts  of  the  Gospel  in  the  Thebaic  Version  are  not  publisiied,  so  for  as  I  am 
aware ;  but  I  am  enabled  to  state  these  facts  from  some  manuscript  additions 
made  by  Dr.Tattam  in  my  copy  of  Woide  which  was  formerly  in  his  possession. 


62        LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  EEVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

terpretation  of  TrapaK:Xr]TOQ.\  The  word  "  Comforter"  does  in- 
deed express  a  true  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  our  most  heart- 
felt experiences  will  tell  us.  Nor  has  the  rendering,  though 
inadequate,  been  without  its  use  in  fixing  this  fact  in  our 
minds ;  but  the  function  of  the  Paraclete,  as  our  Advocate,  is 
even  more  important,  because  wider  and  deeper  than  this. 
Nor  will  the  idea  of  the  "  Comforter"  be  lost  to  us  by  the 
cliange,  for  the  English  Te  Deum  will  still  remain  to  recall 
this  office  of  the  Paraclete  to  our  remembrance,  while  the  res- 
toration of  the  correct  rendering  in  the  passages  of  St.  John's 
Gospel  will  be  in  itself  an  unmixed  gain.  Moreover  (and  this 
is  no  unimportant  fact),  the  language  of  the  Gospel  will  tl>us 
be  linked  in  the  English  Version,  as  it  is  in  the  original,  with 
the  language  of  the  Epistle.  In  this  there  will  be  a  twofold 
advantage.  We  shall  see  fresh  force  in  the  words  thus  ren- 
dered, "He  will  give  you  another  Advocate,"  when  we  re- 
member that  our  Lord  is  styled  by  St.  John  our  "Advocate:" 
the  advocacy  of  Christ  illustrating  and  being  illustrated  by 
the  advocacy  of  the  Spirit.  At  the  same  time,  we  shall  bring 
out  another  of  the  many  coincidences  tending  to  establish  an 
identity  of  authorship  in  the  Gosi^el  and  Epistle,  and  thus  to 
make  valid  for  the  former  all  the  evidences,  external  and  in- 
ternal, which  may  be  adduced  to  prove  the  genuineness  of  the 
latter. 

This  connection  between  the  Gospel  and  the  Epistle  loads 
me  to  another  illustration,  which  links  the  Gospel  with  the 
Apocalypse.  The  idea  that  the  Shechinah,  the  aKr^v)],  the  glory 
Avhich  betokened  the  divine  presence  in  the  Holy  of  Holies, 
and  which  was  wanting  to  the  second  Temple,  would  be  re- 
stored once  more  in  Messiah's  days,  was  a  cherished  hope  of 
the  JcAvish  doctors  during  and  after  the  apostolic  ages.  In 
the  Apocalypse  St.  John  more  than  once  avails  himself  of  im- 
agery derived  from  this  exj^ectation.  Thus,  vii.,  15,  "He  that 
sitteth  on  the  throne  shall  dwell  among  them  {aKrivijati  kir  ah- 
TovQ-^''  xiii.,  6,  "He  opened  his  mouthi  in  blasphemy  against 
God,  to  blaspheme  his  name  and  his  tabernacle  {(TKijvfiv),  and 


ARTIFICIAL  DISTIXCTIOXS  CREATED.  g3 

tlieiu  that  dwell  {-oug  aKrji'ovy-ac)  ill  heaven ;"  xxi.,  3,  "Behold, 
the  tabernacle  {trKrjyi])  of  God  is  with  men,  and.  he  Avill  clioell 
with  them  {cricrjrwaei  fier  ai/rwr)."  Here  it  is  much  to  be  re- 
gretted that  the  necessities  of  the  English  language  required 
our  translators  to  render  the  substantive  crKr)in)  by  one  word 
and  the  verb  aKr}vovv  by  another.  In  the  first  passage  the 
significanc<3  is  entirely  lost  by  translating  aKr]vu)aEi  "  shall 
dwell,"  combined  v^atli  the  erroneous  rendering  of  tTrt ;  and  no 
English  reader  would  suspect  the  reference  to  the  glory,  the 
Shechinah,  hovering  over  the  mercy-seat.*  But  our  regret  is 
increased  when  we  turn  to  the  Gospel,  for  there  also  the  same 
image  reappears  in  the  Greek,  but  is  obliterated  by  the  En- 
glish rendering :  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh,  and.  dwelt  {ioKt]- 
roicrei')  among  US,  and  we  beheld  his  glory'''  The  two  writ- 
ings, which  attribute  the  name  of  the  Word  of  God  to  the  In- 
carnate Son,  are  the  same  also  which  especially  connect  Mes- 
siah's advent  Avith  the  restitution  of  the  Shechinah,  the  light 
or  glory  which  is  the  visible  token  of  God's  presence  among 
men.  In  this  instance  the  usage  of  the  English  language  may 
have  deterred  our  translators.  Still  they  would  have  earned 
our  gratitude  if,  following  the  precedent  of  the  Latin  taher- 
nacidavit,  they  had  anticipated  later  scholars,  and  introduced 
the  verb  "  to  tabernacle"  into  the  English  language ;  or,  fail- 
ing this,  if  by  some  slight  periphrasis  they  had  endeavored 
to  preserve  the  unity  of  idea. 

In  other  cases  where  artificial  distinctions  are  introduced, 
our  translators  must  be  held  blameless,  for  the  exigencies  of 
the  English  language  left  them  no  choice.  Thus,  in  John  iii., 
8,  Tu  ■KVf.vj.ia  (the  wind)  v-ov  diXei  (bloweth)  ....  ovtu)c  lariv 
TTUQ  6  yei'ervTjfxivoe  ek  rov  UyevfxaTOQ  (the  Spirit),  we  must  J)Si- 
tiently  acquiesce  in  the  diflTcrent  renderings,  though  the  com- 
parison between  the  material  and  immaterial  Tryevfxa  is  im- 
paired thereby,  just  as  in  a  later  passage  (xx.,  22,eve(f>v(n](T£v 

*  In  2  Cor.  xii..  9,  'iva  iiriffKijvuxry  tTr"  l/xe  i)  Suvafuc  rov  Xptoro?, trans- 
lated "  that  the  power  of  Christ  maj/  rest  vpon  me,"  there  seems  to  be  a  sim- 
ilar reference  to  the  symbol  of  the  divine  presence  in  the  Holy  of  Holies, 

H 


64       LIOHTFOOT  ON  A  FEESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

Ka\  Xtyei  ai/rotc,  Auj^tTE  livtujia  ayior)  the  Symbolical  act  of 
breathing  on  the  discijDles  loses  much  of  its  force  to  au  En- 
glish reader.  Again,  it  might  be  necessary  to  vary  the  ren- 
derings of  \pu)(Ti  between  "  soul"  and  "  life,"  and  of  awi^eir  be- 
tween "  to  save"  and  "  to  make  whole."  But,  in  ease  of  the 
former  word,  such  variations  as  we  find,  for  instance,  in  Matt. 
xvi.,  25,  26,  and  the  parallel  passages,  deserve  to  be  reconsid- 
ered ;  and  in  their  treatment  of  the  latter,  as  Dean  Alfbrd 
has  shown,*  our  translators  have  diversified  the  rendering  ca- 
priciously. 

And  the  same  excuse  also  holds  good  with  another  class 
of  words — where  a  iKironomasia  occurs  in  the  original,  but 
where  it  is  impossible  in  English  at  once  to  jDreserve  the  sim- 
ilarity of  sound  and  to  give  the  sense  adequately.  In  Phil, 
iii.,  2,  3,  indeed,  our  translators,  following  some  of  the  earlier 
versions,  have  endeavored  to  rcj^roduce  the  paronomasia,  "Be- 
ware of  the  concision  ((v-araroyuj/v),  for  we  are  the  circumcision 
{TrepiToiii}) ;"  but  the  result  is  not  encouraging,  for  it  may  be 
questioned  Avhether  "  concision"  conveys  any  idea  to  the  En- 
glish reader.  Again,  the  attempt  is  made  in  Rom.  xii.,  3,  fxij 
vTr£p(ppov£~iy  Trap  o  Set  (ppoveTy,  dXXct  ^povtiv  eiQ  to  ctw^^oj'eIj',  but 
with  no  great  success,  for  in  the  rendering  "  not  to  think  of 
himself  more  highly  than  he  ought  to  think,  but  to  think  so- 
berly," the  force  of  the  original  is  evaporated.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  rendering  of  1  Cor.  vii.,  31,  ol  '^wjxi.voi  tovtm  rw  kw- 
fiu  [I.  Tov  Koa^xov]  i)Q  fxi)  Karaypoj^Evoi., "  they  that  use  this  world 
as  not  abusing  it,"  is  adequate.  In  other  passages,  such  as 
Acts  viii.,  30,  yivwrTKEiQ  a  avayirujaiceiQ,  "  understandest  thou 
what  thou  readest?"  2  Cor.  iii.,  2,  yivtoaKOfiirt)  kui  avayiviovKo- 
fxivr],  "  known  and  read  ;"  2  Cor.  l.,  13,  a  apayipcjencere  11  Ktti  tTTi- 
yivwtTKere,  "  what  you  read  or  acknowledge;"  2  Cor.  x.,  12,  oh 
ToXfiUfiev  kyKp'irai  y  avyKplrai  lavrovc, "  we  dare  not  make  our- 
selves of  the  number  or  compare  ourselves,"  it  would  be  im- 
possible to  reproduce  the  effect  of  the  original.  But  in  other 
cases,  such  as  1  Cor.  xii.,  2,  wc  av  i'lyecrds,  a-ayo/deioi,  " cara'ied 
*  Contemporary  Eeview,  July,  1868,  p.  223. 


BEAL  DISTINCTIONS  CBLITEBATED.  65 

away  as  ye  were  led  ;"  2  Cor.  iv.,  8,  uTropovfteroi  a\X  ovk  t't,u-o- 
povf-uyoi, "  we  are  perplexed, but  not  in  despair;"  or  2  Cor.  vi., 
10,  we  jJiTfCey  i-^ovT£c  koX  Tzavrn  (oart^oJTer,  "  aS  having  nothing, 
and  yet  possessing  all  things,"  the  rendering  might  be  im- 
proved. Nor  is  there  any  reason  why  the  play  on  kpya'Coixi- 
rovc,  TTEpupya^op.ivovc,  in  2  Thess.  iii.,  1 1,  should  not  be  preserved 
by  "  business,"  "  busy-bodies  ;"  or  why,  in  Ephes.  v.,  15,  /i>)  wq 
fiaocpoi  aW  ujq  aocpoi  should  uot  be  rendered  "  not  as  unwise, 
but  as  wise."  In  this  latter  passage  the  w^ord  a(TO(poc,  which 
occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament,  has  been  jDurpose- 
ly  preferred  to  the  usual  fiwpoQ.  Yet  our  translators  have  ren- 
dered ciaofpoi  "  fools"  here,  and  reserved  "  unwise"  for  a^poj'ec, 
two  verses  below,  where  it  is  not  wanted. 

§  3. 
From  the  creation  of  artificial  distinctions  in  our  English 
Version  by  different  renderings  of  the  same  word,  we  j^ass 
naturally  to  the  opposite  fault,  the  obliteration  of  real  distinc- 
tions by  the  same  rendering  of  different  words.  The  former 
error  is  easily  corrected  for  the  most  part,  the  latter  not  al- 
ways so ;  for  the  synonyms  of  one  language  frequently  can 
not  be  reproduced  in  another  without  a  harsh  expression  or  a 
cumbersome  paraphrase.  Thus  olca,  yfvwo-cw,  'iyyuKa,  tTriiTTanai, 
have  different  shades  of  meaning  in  the  Greek,  but  the  ob- 
vious equivalent  for  each  in  English  is  "  I  know."  Still,  some 
effort  should  be  made  (though  success  is  not  always  possible) 
to  discriminate  between  them,  where  they  occur  in  the  same 
context,  and  where,  therefore,  their  position  throws  a  special 
emphasis  on  the  distinction.  Thus,  in  Acts  xix.,15,we  should 
not  acquiesce  in  "  Jesus  I  know,  and  Paul  I  know,"  as  a  ren- 
dering of  rov  'Irjarovy  yivwaicu)  cat  rvv  UavXov  i-KinTafiai.  though 
all  the  preceding  translations  unite  with  our  Authorized  Ver- 
sion in  obliterating  the  difference.  The  significant  distinc- 
tion which  is  made  in  the  original  between  the  kind  of  recog- 
nition in  the  case  of  the  divine  agent  and  of  the  human  in- 
strument may  easily  be  preserved  by  rendering  "Jesus  I 


(36       LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  EEVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

acJcnoicledge^  and  Paul  I  knoio.''^  Again,  in  such  passages  as 
2  Cor.  v.,  16,  aTTo  Tov  I'vv  ovciva  o'lCafiiv  Kara  crupKa,  fl  Kal  iyyujKa- 
fXEV  Kara  crapKa  Xpiaroy,  uWa  vvv  ovtciri  yiywfTKOfiey  (and  this  is 
a  type  of  a  large  class  of  passages,  where  olca  and  ytj^wtr/cw  oc- 
cur together),  some  imi)rovement  should  be  attempted;  nor, 
in  the  instance  given,  could  there  be  any  difficulty  in  vary- 
ing the  rendering,  thougli  elsewhere  the  task  might  not  prove 
so  easy. 

From  these  allied  words  I  pass  on  to  the  distinction  be- 
tween yivw(TKeii'  and  i-myivuxTKEiv^  Avhich  is  both  clearer  and 
more  easily  dealt  with.  Those  Avho  have  paid  any  attention 
to  the  language  of  St.  Paul  will  recognize  the  force  of  the 
substantive  iiriyrwaiQ  as  denoting  the  advanced  or  perfect 
knowledge  which  is  the  ideal  state  of  the  true  Christian,  and 
will  remember  that  it  appears  only  in  liis  later  epistles  (from 
the  Romans  onward),  where  the  more  contemplative  aspects 
of  the  Gospel  are  brought  into  view,  and  its  comprehensive 
and  eternal  relations  more  fully  set  forth.  But  the  power 
of  the  preposition  appears  in  the  verb  no  less  than  in  the  sub- 
stantive; and,  indeed,  its  significance  is  occasionally  forced 
upon  our  notice,  where  the  simple  and  the  compound  verb 
appear  in  the  same  context.  Thus,  in  1  Cor.  xiii.,12,  cip-i  yi- 
j'W(TA.w  Ik  fiipovc,  TOTE  he  iiriyvioao^ai  KaQi>Q  KaX  ETreyywcrdrjy,  the 
partial  knowledge  {yivcj&icEiv  Ik  fiipovg,  comp.  ver.  9)  is  contrast- 
ed with  the  full  Jcnoicledge  {IwiyivuxrKEiv)  which  shall  be  at- 
tained hereafter,  though  our  translators  have  rendered  both 
words  by  "know."  Yet,  strangely  enough,  where  the  special 
force  of  the  compound  was  less  obvious,  it  has  not  escaped 
them;  for  in  2  Cor.  vi.,  9,  we  ayvoov^EroL  Ka\  ETnyivuxTKUfiEvoi  is 
translated  "as  unknown,  and  yet  welllcnownP 

In  this  particular — the  observance  of  the  distinctions  be- 
tween a  simple  word  and  its  derivatives  compounded  with 
prepositions — our  English  Version  is  especially  faulty.  The 
verb  Kp'ivEiv  and  its  comi^ounds  will  supply  a  good  illustration. 
St.  Paul  especially  delights  to  accumulate  these,  and  thus,  by 
harping  upon  Avords  (if  I  may  use  the  expression),  to  empha- 


REAL  .DISTIXCTIOXS  OBLITERATED. 


G7 


size  great  spiritual  truths  or  important  personal  expsriences. 
Thus  he  puts  together  o-uy^-ptVeu',  uvaKpivnv,  1  Cor.  ii,,  13-15  ; 
Kpiyeii',  avaKpiveir,  1  Cor.  iv.,  3,  4  ;  eyicpireiy,  (TvyKpiveiP,  2  Cor.  X., 
12;  icpiyeu',oiaKpii'eiy,l  Cor.  vi.,1— 6;  Kpiyeii',diat:piyeii'^  KaraKplvEi}', 
Rom.  xiv.,22,  23;  1  Cor.xi.,29,  31,  32  ;  Kpiyew,  KaraKpii'eu^Iiom. 
ii.,  1.  Now  it  seems  imjjossible  in  most  cases,  without  a  sac- 
rifice of  English  which  no  one  would  be  prepared  to  make,  to 
reproduce  the  similarity  of  sound  or  the  identity  of  root ;  but 
the  distinction  of  sense  should  always  be  preserved.  How 
this  is  neglected  in  our  version,  and  what  confusion  ensues 
from  the  neglect,  the  following  instances  will  show.  In  1 
Cor.  iv.,  3,  4,  5,  ifdoi  Se  £<c  E\a\i(T-6i'  ecttiv  'iva  v(f  v^ujv  ai'ciKpidu) 
.  .  .  aXX  ov^e  tfxavToy  avuKpiru)  .  .  .  6  Ct  a^'aKpivwv  fxe  Kvpiog 
ecTTii'  .  .  .  ujorre  fxi)  irpu  Kaipov  ri  Kpivtn^  iwq  av  'iXS^t]  6  Kvpioc.  og 
Kul  (pwTiaei  TCI  KpvKTci  Tou  (Tfco7ovc,  tlic  Avord  aiaKpivEiv  is  trans- 
lated throughout  "judge,"  while  in  a  previous  passage,  1  Cor. 
ii.,  14, 15,  it  is  rendered  indifferently  "to  discern"  and  "to 
judge."  But  avaKplvtiv  is  neither  "  to  judge,"  which  is  Kpiyew, 
nor  "  to  discern,"  which  is  hak-pu'ew,  but  "  to  examine,  investi- 
gate, inquire  into,  question,"  as  it  is  rightly  translated  else- 
where, e.  g.,  1  Cor.  ix.,  8  ;  x.,  25,  27  ;  and  the  correct  under- 
standing of  the  passages  before  us  depends  on  our  retaining 
this  sense.  The  livuKpiaic^  it  will  be  remembered,  was  an  Athe- 
nian law  term  for  a  preliminary  investigation  (distinct  from 
the  actual  Kpirnc,  or  trial),  in  which  evidence  was  collected, 
and  the  prisoner  committed  for  trial  if  a  true  bill  was  found 
against  him.  It  corresponded,  in  short,  mutatis  mutandis^  to 
the  part  taken  in  English  law  proceedings  by  the  grand  jury. 
And  this  is  substantially  the  force  of  the  word  here.  The 
apostle  condemns  all  these  impatient  hwra^n  prcpjudicia.^  these 
unauthorized  avaKpiaiiq,  which  anticipate  the  final  kjo/crtc,  re- 
serving his  case  for  the  great  tribunal,  when  at  length  cdl 
the  evidence  will  be  forthcoming,  and  a  satisfactory  verdict 
can  be  given.  Meanwhile  this  process  of  gathering  evidence 
has  begun ;  an  avuKpimq  is  indeed  being  held,  not,  however, 
by  these  self-appointed  magistrates,  but  by  One  who  alone 


68      LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

has  the  authority  to  institute  the  inquiry,  and  the  ability  to 
sift  the  facts:  6  ot  avaKph'ojy  fxe  Kvpiog  t'ortj'.  Of  this  half  tech- 
nical sense  of  the  word  the  New  Testament  itself  furnishes  a 
good  example.  The  examination  of  St.  Paul  before  Festus  is 
both  in  name  and  in  fact  an  avaKpimq.  The  Roman  procurator 
explains  to  Agrippa  how  he  had  directed  the  prisoner  to  be 
brought  into  court  {wpoi'iyayov  avruv),  in  order  that,  having 
held  the  preliminary  inquiry  usual  in  such  cases  {rrjgai'aKpifTewQ 
yfvojLttVrjc),  he  might  be  able  to  lay  the  case  before  the  emperor 
(Acts  XXV.,  26).  Thus  St.Paul's  meaning  here  suffers  very 
seriously  by  the  wrong  turn  given  to  avatcpireiv ;  nor  is  this 
the  only  passage  where  the  sense  is  impaired  thereby.  In  1 
Cor.  xiv.,  24,  eXey^frat  v;rci  Trcivru)y^avat:piy  erai  vttu  Trai'ru)^,  [^■at 
oiirw]  TCI  Kpvnra  tTjq  tcap^iag  avrou  <pavtpa.  y/j'tra/,  the  sense  re- 
quired is  clearly  "  sifting,  probing,  revealing,"  and  the  render- 
ing of  our  translators,  "  he  is  judged  of  all,"  introduces  an 
idea  alien  to  the  passage.  Again,  only  five  verses  lower  down 
(xiv., 29),  another  compound  oi  Kpiveiv  occurs  and  is  similarly 
treated  :  TrpotpTjrai  Ct  cvo  f/  rpe'ig  Xa\ei-(i)frai'  mi  ol  iiXXoi  cta/vptrtVw- 
ffoj', "  let  the  prophets  speak  two  or  three,  and  let  the  other 
judged''  where  it  would  be  difficult  to  attach  any  precise 
meaning  to  the  English  without  the  aid  of  the  Greek,  and 
where  certainly  liaKpivi-ujaav  ought  to  be  rendered  "  discern" 
rather  than  "judge." 

Another  passage  which  I  shall  take  to  illustrate  the  mode 
of  dealing  with  Kpivav  and  its  compounds  is  still  more  impor- 
tant. In  1  Cor.  xi.,  28-34,  a  passage  in  which  the  English 
rendering  is  chargeable  with  some  serious  practical  conse- 
quences, and  where  a  little  attention  to  the  original  will  cor- 
rect more  than  one  erroneous  inference,  the  rendering  ofvpt- 
vEiv^  haKpiviiv.,  KaraKpiveiv,  is  utterly  confused.  The  Greek  runs 
doKifia^tTU)  he  dvdpuTroQ  eavrov  Ka\  oi/rwc  Ik  tov  aprov  itrdii-oj  Kal  sk 
rov  TTOTTjpiov  ttivItw'  6  yap  eadiujy  mi  Trirwv  [cu'at'we]  Kplfxa  eawrw 
kaQiEi  Koi  TTjVfj,  juj)  ZiaKpivu)v  to  aHfia  \tov  Kvpiov\  .  .  .  el  Ze  tav- 
TOVQ  ciEKpiyofiEV,  ovK  av  eKpivoiieOa,  Kpirofjei'oi  he  vtto  tov  Kv- 
piov  Traihevoneda,  ira  fii)  avv  rw  KottfXf  KaTaKpiQwfiev  .  .  .  .  e'i  tiq 


EEAL  DISTIXCTIOXS  OBLITERATED.  69 

TretJ'^,  Ev  o"iK(o  iaQiird).  "ra  fjii]  elg  Kp//ta  (Tvvip-)(r]irQe^  where  the 
words  in  brackets  should  be  omitted  from  the  text.  The  En- 
glish rendering  corresponding  to  this  is,  "But  let  a  man  ex- 
amine himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread  and  drink  of 
that  cup ;  for  he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily  eateth 
and  drinketh  damnation  to  himself,  not  discerning  the  Lord's 
body.  .  .  .  For  if  we  yi^oxAAjudge  ourselves,  we  should  not  be 
judged.  But  when  we  are  judged,  we  are  chastened  of  the 
Lord,  that  we  should  not  be  condemned  Avith  the  world.  .  .  . 
If  any  man  hunger,  let  him  eat  at  home,  that  ye  come  not  to- 
gether unto  condemnation.''''  Here  the  faults  are  manifold. 
In  the  first  jolace,  Kpi\ia  is  rendered  by  two  separate  words, 
"damnation"  and  "condemnation;"  and, though  Ave  can  not 
fairly  charge  our  translators  with  the  inferences  practically 
drawn  from  the  first  Avord,  yet  this  is  a  blemish  which  we 
would  gladly  remove.  But,  in  fact,  both  Avords  are  equally 
Avrong,  the  correct  rendering  "judgment"  having  in  either 
case  been  relegated  to  the  margin,  Avhere  it  has  lain  neglect- 
ed, and  lias  exercised  no  influence  at  all  on  the  popular  mind. 
And  this  circumstance  (for  it  is  only  a  sample  of  the  fate 
Avhich  has  befallen  numberless  A'aluable  marginal  readings 
elseAvhere)  suggests  an  important  practical  consideration.  If 
the  marginal  renderings  are  intended  for  English-reading  peo- 
l^le  (and  for  scholars  they  are  superfluous),  they  will  only 
then  fulfill  their  purpose  Avhen  the  margin  is  regarded  as  an 
integral  portion  of  our  English  Bibles,  and  Avhen  it  is  ordered 
by  authority  that  these  alternative  readings  shall  always  be 
printed  Avith  the  text.  This,  then,  is  the  second  error  of  our 
translators :  Kpheiy,  KuraKpiveiv,  are  confused,  Avhen  the  force  of 
the  passage  depends  on  their  being  kept  separate  ;  for  these 
Kpifxara  in  the  apostle's  language  are  tenqyorari/  judgments, 
difiering  so  entirely  from  K-a-ak-pt/ia  that  they  are  intended  to 
have  a  chastening  effect,  and  to  save  from  condemnation,  as 
he  himself  distinctly  states:  tcpLvofizvoi  ce  viro  Kvpiov  Traihvu- 
/u£0a,  'iva  fit)  avv  tw  KOffjxw  KaTaKpiQiofiEv.  Lastly,  the  version 
contains  a  third  error  in  the  confusion  of  Kpiyuy  and  ciaKpiyeiv; 


70      LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

for  wliereas  ZiaKpivor-eq  -u  awfia  is  correctly  translated  "  dis- 
cerning  the  body  of  the  Lord"  at  the  first  occurrence  of  ^tacpt- 
veiv,  yet  when  the  word  appears  again  it  is  rendered  "judge," 
to  the  confusion  of  the  sense  :  d  kavrovg  ^lEk-p/ro/Lter,  o^^•  ay  Ifcpi- 
vofxeda,''^  If  we  loould judge  ourselves,  we  should  not  be  judged^'' 
where  it  ought  to  stand,  "If  we  had  discerned  ourselves,  we 
should  not  have  been  judged.''''  In  fact,  St.  Paul  speaks  of 
three  stages,  marked  respectively  by  haKpirew,  Kpinn',  and  ica- 
TaKpiveir.  The  first  word  expresses  the  duty  of  persons  before 
and  in  communicating:  this  duty  is  twofold;  they  must  dis- 
cern themselves  and  discern  the  Lord's  body,  that  they  may 
understand,  and  not  violate  the  proper  relations  between  the 
one  and  the  other.  The  second  expresses  the  immediate  con- 
sequences which  ensue  from  the  neglect  of  this  duty — the 
judgments  which  are  corrective  and  remedial,  but  not  final. 
The  third  denotes  the  final  condemnation,  which  only  then 
overtakes  a  man  when  the  second  has  failed  to  reform  his  char- 
acter. But  this  sequence  is  wholly  obliterated  in  our  ver- 
sion. In  Rom.  xiv.,  22,  23,  again,  where  the  words  occur  to- 
gether, it  Avould  have  been  well  to  have  kept  the  distinction, 
though  here  the  confusion  is  not  so  fatal  to  the  meaning: 
"  Happy  is  he  that  condemneth  not  himself  (o  /j»)  Kpirwi'  eav-oy) 
in  that  thing  which  he  alloweth  [h  J  cot:ifi(i^ei) :  and  he  that 
douhteth  (6  Ik  haicpii'Ofieyoc)  is  damned  (icaradi^piTai)  if  he  eat, 
because  he  eateth  not  of  faith."  St.  Paul  is  not  satisfied  in 
this  case  that  a  man  should  not  condemn  himself;  he  must 
not  e\en  judge  himself  In  other  words,  the  case  must  be  so 
clear  that  he  has  no  need  to  balance  conflicting  arguments 
with  a  view  to  arriving  at  a  result.  Otherwise  he  should  ab- 
stain altogether,  for  his  eating  is  not  of  faith.  Here  our  trans- 
lators have  rendered  ^laKpiyo/xeyog  rightly, but  a  misgiving  ap- 
pears to  have  occurred  to  them,  for  in  the  margin  they  add, 
"Or,  discerneth  and  putteth  a  difference  between  meats," 
which  would  be  the  active  6  Bianpivwy.  Indeed,  an  evil  desti- 
ny would  seem  to  have  pursued  them  throughout  when  deal- 
ing with  compounds  of  nrjotVfir,  for  in  another  passage  (2  Cor.  i., 


REIL  DISTIXCTIONS  OBLITERATED.  71 

9)  they  render  cnroKpifia  "  sentence,"  though  the  correct  mean- 
ing "  answer"  is  given  in  the  margin. 

This  neglect  of  prepositions  in  compound  words  is  a  very 
frequent  fault  in  our  version.  In  the  parable  of  the  wheat 
and  the  tares,  indeed,  though  the  correct  reading  describes 
the  sowing  in  the  one  case  by  aTreipeiv,  and  in  the  other  by 
iin(TKd()iiv  (Matt,  xiii,,  24,  25),  yet  no  blame  can  attach  to  our_ 
translators  for  not  observing  the  distinction,  as  they  had  in 
their  text  the  faulty  reading  'iaTreipe  for  £7rfWetjO£v.  But  else- 
where this  excuse  can  not  be  pleaded  in  their  behalf  Tlius, 
in  the  parable  of  the  wedding-feast,  there  is  a  striking  varia- 
tion of  language  between  the  commission  of  the  master  and 
its  execution  by  the  servants,  which  ought  not  to  have  been 
efiaced.  The  order  given  is  Tropeveade  £7rt  roc  cieS,6dovQ  rwv 
tioaJj',  but  as  regards  its  fulfillment  we  read  simply  it,eX66yTEQ 
EiQ  rag  odovg  (Matt,  xxii.,  9, 10).  In  this  change  of  expression 
yve  seem  to  see  a  reference  to  the  imperfect  work  of  the  hu- 
man agents  as  contrasted  with  the  urgent  and  uncompromis- 
ing terms  of  the  command,  Avhich  bade  them  scour  the  public 
thoroughfares,  following  all  their  outlets ;  and  certainly  it  is 
slovenly  work  to  translate  both  -uq  ^u^udovg  twp  bciLv  and  rhg 
vcovg  alone  by  the  same  rendering  "highways."  A  similar 
defect,  again,  is  the  obliteration  of  the  distinction  between 
caTTciydy  and  Itccairaydi'  in  2  Cor.  xii.,  15,  "I  will  very  gladly 
spend  (dairai'iiaoj)  and  be  spent  (fKoa7raj'jj9//o-o)ucu)  for  you," 
Avhere  "  wholly  spent"  would  give  the  force  of  the  compound. 
But  examples  of  this  kind  might  be  multiplied.  Would  it  not 
be  possible,  for  instance,  to  find  some  rendering  which,  with- 
out any  shock  to  good  taste,  would  yet  distinguish  between 
(piXtlv  and  Ka-a(pi\Eh'  in  such  passages  as  Matt,  xxvi.,  48,49,  '6v 
uv  (piXi'icTw  axjTuc  iffTiv  ....  mi  KarefiXijaev  avrov,  and  Luke 
vii.,45,46,  (piXr^fxa  fiOL  ovk  tocoKag,  avrr]  M  .  .  .  ov  cuXltteu  kutu- 
(piXovaa  Tovg  Trocag  juov,  SO  as  to  bring  out  the  extravagance 
of  the  treachery  in  the  one  case  and  the  depth  of  the  devo- 
tion in  the  other,  implied  in  the  strong  compound  vara^tXtTi'? 

Hardly  less  considerable  is  the  injury  inflicted  on  the  sense 


-72       LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST.  ' 

by  failing  to  observe  the  different  force  of  ^^repositions  Avbcn 
not  compounded.  Of  tbis  fault  one  instance  must  suffice.  In 
2  Cor.  iii.,  11,  £t  yop  to  KaTapyo\}\xivov  d  la  cu^Tjg,  :roX\w  fiaWoy 
Tu  iiivov  tv  cotri,  "For  if  tbat  wbicb  is  done  away  teas  glorioits, 
mucb  more  tbat  wbicli  remainetb  is  glorious,^''  tbe  distinction 
of  Ota  colrjQ  and  kv  c6t,r]  is  obliterated,  thougb  the  change  is  sig- 
nificant in  tbe  original,  where  tbe  transitory  flush  and  tbe 
abiding  2^^'cse7ice  are  distinguished  by  the  change  of  preposi- 
tions, and  thus  another  touch  is  added  to  the  jjicture  of  the 
contrast  between  the  two  dispensations. 

Again,  how  much  force  is  lost  by  neglecting  a  change  of 
gender  in  the  English  rendering  of  John  i.,  ll,"He  came  to 
his  own  {tic,  TU  'icia),  and  his  own  (oJ  'icwi)  received  him  not." 
Here  tbe  distinction  in  tbe  original  between  the  neuter  tu  'icia 
and  the  masculine  ol  Uioi  at  once  recalls  the  parable  in  Matt. 
xxi.,  33  seq.,  in  which  the  vineyard  corresponds  to  tu  'iha  and 
the  husbandmen  to  ol  'icioi;  but  our  version  makes  no  distinc- 
tion between  the  place  and  the  persons — between  "  his  own 
home" and  "his  OAvn  people."  Doubtless  there  is  a  terseness 
and  a  strength  in  tbe  English  rendering  which  no  one  would 
willingly  sacrifice;  but  the  sense  ought  to  be  the  first  con- 
sideration. 

Let  me  pass  to  an  illustration  of  another  kind,  where  con- 
fusion is  introduced  by  the  same  rendering  of  different  verbs : 
1  Cor.  xiv.,  36,"  What,  came  the  word  of  God  out  from  you  ? 
or  came  it  unto  you  only?"  Here  there  appears  to  the  En- 
glish reader  to  be  an  opposition  between  from  and  zmto,  and 
the  two  interrogatives  seem  to  introduce  alternative  proposi- 
tions. The  original,  however,  is  */  a^'  vfiwy  6  \6yog  tov  Qeov 
i^rjXdev  »)  dg  vfidc  fxovovQ  KaT}]VTriaev,  where  the  fault  of  the  En- 
glish Version  is  twofold ;  the  same  word  is  used  in  rendering 
e'irjXdei'  and  KaT7]yrrjaEr,  and  fiovovg  is  represented  by  tbe  ambig- 
uous "  only."  Thus  the  emphasis  is  removed  from  the  pro- 
noun you  in  both  clauses  to  the  prepositions,  and  the  two  hy- 
potheses are  made  to  appear  mutually  exclusive.  The  trans- 
lation of  Tyndale,  which  was  retained  even  in  the  Bishops' 


REAL  DISTINCTIONS  OBLITERATED. 


n 


Bible,  though  somewhat  harsh,  is  correct  and  forcible,"  Spronge 
the  worde  of  God  from  you  ?  Ether  came  it  unto  you  only  ?"* 
Much  attention  has  been  directed  by  recent  writers  to  the 
synonyms  of  the  New  Testament.  They  have  pointed  out 
what  is  lost  to  the  English  reader  by  such  confusions  as  those 
of  av\t),yold,  and  Tioi^vri,  flock,  in  John  x.,'16,  where  in  our  ver- 
sion the  same  word  fold  stands  for  both,f  though  the  point 
of  our  Lord's  teaching  depends  mainly  on  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  many  folds  and  the  one  flock ;  of  coi/Xoi  and  Ziukovoi^ 
m  the  parable  of  the  wedding-feast  (Matt,  xxii.,  1  seq.),both 
rendered  by  servants,  though  they  have  different  functions  as- 
signed to  them,  and  though  they  represent  two  distinct  class- 
es of  beings — the  one  human,  the  other  angelic  ministers  ;J  of 
KucpiroL  and  (TTrvpiceg,  in  the  miracles  of  feeding  the  five  thou- 
sand and  the  four  thousand  respectively — both  translated  bas- 
kets — though  the  words  are  set  over  against  each  other  in  the 
evangelic  narratives  (Matt,  xvi.,  9, 10  ;  Mark  viii.,  19,  20),  and 
seem  to  point  to  a  different  nationality  of  the  multitudes  in 
the  two  cases ;  of  ^wa  and  Qi]pia  in  the  Apocalypse,  both  rep- 
resented by  beasts,  though  the  one  denotes  the  beings  who 

*  A  veiy  important  passage,  in  which  the  hand  of  the  reviser  is  needed, 
may  perhaps  be  noted  here.  The  correct  Greek  text  of  Matt,  v.,  32  is  vag 
6  (iTToXviiJV  rriv  yvvalKa  ahrov,  TraptKTOQ  \6yov  iropviiaQ,  lioiti  aurijv  fioi- 
XfvOiivai,  Kai  og  ti'iv  cnroXeXvf^iivrjv  yaft^^oy  )i(0(x«''«')  where  our  English 
Version  has  "Whosoever  shall  put  a^ay  his  wife  saving  for  the  cause  of  for- 
nication causeth  her  to  commit  adultery ;"  and  "whosoever  shall  marry  her 
that  is  divorced  committeth  adultery."  Here  the  English  Version  casts  equal 
blame  on  the  woman,  thus  doing  her  an  injustice,  for  obviously  she  is  not  in 
the  same  position  with  the  husband  as  regards  guilt ;  but  the  Greek  /.loixivOFj- 
vai  (not  itoixuodni),  being  a  passive  verb,  implies  something  quite  different. 
In  this  instance,  however,  the  fault  does  not  lie  at  the  door  of  our  translators, 
who,  instead  of  fiotxivSijvat,  had  the  false  reading  fioixaaOai;  but,  the  correct 
text  being  restored,  a  corresponding  change  in  the  English  rendering  is  nec- 
essary.    Gompare  also  the  various  reading  in  Matt,  xix.,  9. 

t  Tyndale  and  Coverdale  preserve  the  distinction  ofjlock  and  /old.  In  the 
Great  Bible  it  disappears. 

t  Here  again  the  older  versions  generally  presene  the  distinction,  trans- 
lating Sov\ot,SiuKovoi,hy  "  servants,"  "ministers,"  respectively.  TheEheims 
Version  has  "waiters"  for  Suckovoi.  In  this  case  the  Geneva  Bible  was  the 
first  to  obliterate  the  distinction,  which  was  preserved  even  in  the  Bishops'. 


74      LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FEESH  BEVISIOX  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

worship  before  the  throne  of  heaven,  and  the  other  the  mon- 
sters whose  abode  is  the  abj'ss  beneath.  For  other  instances, 
and  generally  for  an  adequate  treatment  of  this  branch  of 
exegesis,  I  shall  be  content  to  refer  to  the  Avorks  of  Archbish- 
op Trench  and  others ;  but  the  following  examples,  out  of 
many  which  might  be  given,  will  serve  as  further  illustrations 
of  the  subject,  which  is  far  from  being  exhausted. 

In  John  xiii.,  23,  25,  I'lv  cc.  avuKtii-ievoc  t'lg  ek  tCjv  fxadnrwr  av- 
Tov  iv  rw  koXttii}  tov  'Iijitou  .  .  .  ara-rreaiov  tKelvoc,  o'v-wq  eiri  to  (rrrj- 
OoQ  TOV  'I»;iTou  XiyEt, "  Xow  there  was  leaning  on  Jesus'  bosom 
one  of  his  disciples  ...  He  then  /y/;?<7  o?i  Jesus' breast  saith," 
the  English  Version  makes  no  distinction  between  the  reclin- 
ing position  of  the  beloved  disciple  throughout  the  meal,  de- 
scribed by  omK.£</uf  j'oc,  and  the  sudden  change  of  posture  at 
this  moment,  introduced  by  araTTemov.  This  distinction  is  fur- 
ther enforced  in  the  original  by  a  change  in  both  the  prepo- 
sitions and  the  nouns,  from  h  to  i-/,  and  from  koXttoc  to  a-T^Qoc. 
St.  John  was  reclining  on  the  bosom  of  his  Master,  and  he  sud- 
denly threw  back  his  head  upon  his  breast  to  ask  a  question. 
Again,  in  a  later  passage,  a  reference  occurs — not  to  the  re- 
clining position,  but  to  the  sudden  movement* — in  xxi.,  20, 
oe  KoX  ariiTEaEv  ii'  -<J  CEiTrro)  e~i  to  (ttTjOoc  avTOv  koJ  eIttei',  where 
likewise  it  is  misunderstood  by  our  translators, "  which  also 
leaned  on  his  breast  and  said."  This  is  among  the  most  strik- 
ing of  those  vivid  descriptive  traits  which  distinguish  the 
narrative  of  the  fourth  Gospel  generally,  and  which  are  espe- 

*  The  word  dvaTriTrriiv  occurs  several  times  in  the  Kew  Testament,  and  al- 
ways signifies  a  change  of  position,  for  indeed  this  idea  is  inherent  in  the  word. 
It  is  used  of  a  rower  bending  back  for  a  fresh  stroke  {e.g.,  Polyb.,  i.,  21,  2), 
of  a  horse  suddenly  checked  and  rearing  (Plat.,  Phcrdr.,  2'A  b,  e),  of  a  guest 
throwing  himself  back  on  the  couch  or  on  the  ground  preparatory  to  a  meal 
(Matt.  XV.,  35  ;  John  xiii. ,  1 2,  etc.). 

The  received  text  of  xiii.,  2.")  runs,  iirnnaiijv  dk  IkiXvoc  tm  tu  ariiOocK.T.X., 
but  the  correct  reading  is  as  given  above.  The  substitution  of  tTriTrterciv,  how- 
ever, does  not  tell  in  fiivor  of  our  translators ;  for  this  word  ought  to  have 
shown,  even  more  clearly  than  armreowv,  that  a  change  of  posture  was  intend- 
ed. The  ovrtuQ,  which  appears  in  the  correct  text,  and  gives  an  additional 
touch  to  the  picture,  has  a  parallel  in  iv.,  6,  tKaOii^e-o  o'v-iog  t-i  t?j  irriyy.  In 
xxi.,  20,  there  is  no  various  reading. 


REAL  DISTIXCTIOXS  OBLITERATED.  /rs 

cially  remarkable  in  these  last  scenes  of  Jesus's  life,  where  the 
beloved  disciple  was  himself  an  eye-witness  and  an  actor.  It 
is  therefore  to  be  regretted  that  these  fine  touches  of  the  pic- 
ture should  be  blurred  in  our  English  Bibles. 

^  Again,  in  1  Cor.  xiv.,  20,  yitt)  iraicia  yivetjQe  raig  (ppeaiv,  aXXa 
-ji  (wa/./^  vt]iria^ere,  much  force  is  lost  by  the  English  render- 
ing, "  Be  not  children  in  understanding ;  howbeit  in  malice 
be  ye  children.''''  In  the  original  St.Paul  is  not  satisfied  that 
his  converts  should  be  merely  children  in  vice;  they  must  be 
something  less  than  this;  they  must  be  guileless  as  hdbes ; 
and  we  can  not  aflbrd  to  obliterate  the  distinction  between 
Traiom  and  vijirioi.  Again,  in  this  same  chapter  (ver.  7),  o/xwc 
ra  u\pv)(a  (pujvijv  ^icuyra  .  .  .  k'av  cia(TToX))y  toiq  (pQuyyoiQ  m)  Sai  is 
translated  "  Even  things  without  life  giving  sound  ...  ex- 
cept they  give  a  distinction  in  the  sounds,''^  where  certainly 
different  words  should  have  been  found  for  tpcji'i)  and  cpduyyoc; 
and  yet  our  translators  did  not  fail  through  poverty  of  ex- 
pression, for  three  verses  below  they  have  rendered  <pm'ai 
voices,  and  afcjyoy  loithout  signification.  In  the  margin  they 
suggest  tunes  for  <pQ6yyoiQ,  and  this  would  be  preferable  to  re- 
taining the  same  word.  As  (pdoyyoq  is  used  especially  of  mu- 
sical sounds,  perhaps  notes  might  be  adopted.  This  is  just  a 
case  where  a  word  not  elsewhere  found  in  the  English  Bible 
might  be  safely  introduced,  because  there  is  no  incongruity 
which  jars  upon  the  ear.  Again,  in  the  following  chapter  (xv., 
40),  iripa  fxey  y  ruiv  tirovpuviuiv  ^6t,a,  eripa  ce  »/  rwv  eTriyEiwy.  ctXX;; 
^o^a  i/Xiov  Koi  aXXr}  ^o^a  (TtXr]vr}g  Kal  aXXr]  ^o^a  acrripwr,  the  words 
aXXt]  and  hipa  are  translated  alike,  "The  glory  of  the  celestial 
is  one,  and  the  glory  of  the  terrestrial  is  another.  There  is  one 
glory  of  the  sun,  another  glory  of  the  moon,  and  another  glory 
of  the  stars."  Yet  it  is  hardly  to  be  doubted  that  St.  Paul 
purposely  uses  kripa  when  he  is  speaking  of  things  belonging 
to  different  classes,  as  eirovpana  and  tmyeia,  and  dXXr]  when  he 
is  speaking  of  things  belonging  to  the  same  class,  as  the  sun, 
and  moon,  and  stars ;  for  this  is  the  proper  distinction  between 
aXXri  and  kripa,  that,  whereas  the  former  denotes  simply  dis- 


76       LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FEESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

tinction  o^ individuals^  the  latter  involves  the  secondary  idea 
of  difference  of  kind.  In  fact,  the  change  in  the  foi-m  of  the 
sentence  by  which  c6t,a,  i6t,a.  from  being  marked  out  as  the 
subjects  by  the  definite  article  and  distinguished  by  juef  .  .  . 
^£  in  the  first  place,  become  simply  predicates,  and  are  con- 
nected by  Kal  .  .  .  ical  in  the  second,  corresponds  to  the  change 
from  kripa  to  aXXri  in  passing  from  the  one  to  the  other.  These 
words  uWoc,  erepoc,  occur  together  more  than  once,  and  in  all 
cases  something  is  lost  by  effacing  the  distinction.  In  Gal. 
i.,6,  davjda^u)  on  ovtco  ra^lcoQ  ^tTariQeadt  .  .  .  dg  trEpov  evayyi- 
Xtoj',  o  ovK  t(TTiv  ttXXo,  translated  "  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so  soon 
removed  .  .  .  unto  another  Gospel  which  is  not  another,^''  the 
sense  would  be  brought  out  by  giving  each  word  its  proper 
force;  and  again, in  2  Cor,  xi.,  4,  aWov  'Ir^arovv  Kr^pvaau  ov  ovk 
£KT]pv^afj.ey  >)  Tryevfjia  erepov  Xa^ficiverE  o  ovk  eXaftere,  though  the 
loss  is  less  considerable,  the  distinction  might  with  advantage 
have  been  preserved.  In  these  instances,  however,  a  reviser 
might  be  deterred  by  the  extreme  difficulty  in  distinguishing 
the  two,  without  introducing  some  modernism.  In  the  pas- 
sage first  quoted  (1  Cor,  xv.,40),  the  end  might  perhaps  be  at- 
tained by  simply  substituting  "  other"  for  "  another"  in  ren- 
dering Irepa. 

Still  more  important  is  it  to  mark  the  distinction  between 
fjpai  and  yifeffdai,  where  our  translators  have  not  observed  it. 
Thus  our  English  rendering  of  John  viii.,  58,  "Before  Abra- 
ham teas,  I  c«??,"  loses  half  the  force  of  the  original,  irply 
'Ajipahfi  yereadai,  iyw  elfxi,  "  Before  Abraham  teas  born,  I  am." 
The  becoming  only  can  be  rightly  predicated  of  the  patri- 
arch; the  bei7-i</  is  reserved  for  the  Eternal' Son  alone.  Sim- 
ilar in  kind,  though  less  in  degree,  is  the  loss  in  the  rendering 
of  Luke  vi.,  36,  yt  I'f  (T0£  oiKrlpfioj'ec  k:d.6wQ  [^at]  6  7ror»)p  vf.iuiy  oJic- 
Ttpjjitjjy  eariy,  "J5e  ye  merciful,  as  your  Father  also  is  merci- 
ful." Here  also  the  original  expresses  the  distinction  between 
the  imjDerfect  effort  and  the  eternal  attribute.* 

*  In  1  Pet.  i. ,  16,  our  translators,  when  they  gave  the  rendering  ^'Be  ye 
holy,  for  I  am  holy,"  had  before  them  the  reading  uyioi  y'lviaOt,  on  tyw 
(iyiog  el  fit,  but  the  correct  text  is  ilyioi  ictaQt,  on  lyti  dyioQ  (omitting  tlixi'). 


REAL  DISTIXCTIOXS  OBLITERATED.  77 

Illustrations  of  similar  defects  might  be  multiplied,  though 
in  many  cases  it  is  much  easier  to  point  out  the  fault  than  to 
suggest  the  remedy.  Thus  such  a  rendering  as  2  Cor.  vii., 
10, "For  godly  sorrow  worketh  repentance  {^xtTavoiav)  to  sal- 
vation not  to  be  repented  of  {a^ErajxiXriTov)^^''  belongs  to  this 
class.  Here  the  Geneva  Testament  has  "  causeth  amendment 
unto  salvation  not  to  be  repented  of,"  and  perhaps  it  were 
best,  in  this  instance,  to  sacrifice  the  usual  rendering  of  fiiTa- 
voia  in  order  to  preserve  the  distinction  (unless,  indeed,  we 
are  prepared  to  introduce  the  word  "regret"  for  fiETafxiXfia), 
especially  as  ^iTai^uXiaQai  in  the  context  is  consistently  trans- 
lated "  repent."  Again,  it  were  desirable  to  find  some  better 
rendering  of  Trao-a  ^oaiQ  ayadi)  (vut  TTcij'  cwprjiia  riXeiov  in  James 
i.,  17,  than  "every  good  gift  and  every  perfect  ^(/i',"  since  a 
contemporary  of  St.  James  especially  distinguishes  Bofftc,  So/ua, 
from  cwpoy,  Sujpeci,  etc.,  saying  that  the  latter  are  much  stron- 
ger, and  involve  the  idea  of  magnitude  and  fullness,  which  is 
wanting  to  the  former  (Philo,  J^eff.  All.,  iii.,  70,  p.  126,  tjjL(painv 
fiE-yidovQ  nXeiu)}'  ayaduiv  ^rjXoiicny,  K.r.X.;  comp.  (le  Cherub.,  23, 
p.  154),  and  applying  to  them  the  very  same  epithet  "jjerfect" 
which  occurs  in  the  passage  before  us.  And  yet  the  distinc- 
tion w^ould  be  dearly  purchased  at  the  cost  of  an  oiFensive 
Latinism.  But,  whatever  difficulty  there  may  be  in  finding 
different  renderings  here,  it  was  certainly  not  necessary  in 
the  sentence  immediately  preceding,  "  When  lust  hath  con- 
ceived, it  bringeth  forth  sin  ;  and  sin,  when  it  is  finished,  5;7*;?y- 
eth  forth  death,"  //  kirSvuia  (TvXXajSovaa  TiKTEi  ctfiapTiav,  >/  he  a/jiap- 
ria  cnroTEXicrdElffa  airoi^vei  duvaroy,  either  to  obliterate  a  real 
distinction  by  giving  the  same  rendering  of  rartt  and  airoicvEi, 
or  to  create  an  artificial  distinction  by  adopting  different 
forms  of  sentences  for  7/  linOv^ia  avXXajjovaa  and  //  hfiap-ia  c'lTTO- 
TEXtddEiaa.  The  English  might  run,  "Lust,  when  it  hath  con- 
ceived, bringeth  forth  sin,  and  sin,  when  it  is  perfected  (or 
"grown"),  gendereth  death."  Again, in  Rom.  xii.,  2,  "Be  not 
conformed  to  this  world, but  be  ye  transformed  by  the  renew- 
ing of  your  mind,"  for  /i>)  (Tvffx'?/"a'''<ff  ff^fi  J""  atw;'t  tovtc^  dXXa 


78      LIOIITFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

IJie~afj.op(pov(TdE  Tij  ayaKaLJ'bjffei  rov  vooq  [u^wj'],  the  English  not 
only  suggests  an  identity  of  expression  Avhich  has  no  place 
in  the  original,  but  obliterates  an  irajDortant  distinction  be- 
tween the  (Txrj^a,  or  fashion,  and  the  iJ.op(pt),  or  form — between 
the  outward  and  transitory,  and  the  abiding  and  substantial. 
We  might  translate  fjt)  o-u<7x»?/i«r(i^eff0f,  v.r.X.,  "  Be  ye  not  fash- 
ioned after  this  world,  but  be  ye  transformed  in  the  renew- 
ing, etc.,"  thus  partially  retracing  our  steps,  and  following  on 
the  track  of  Tyndale's  and  other  earlier  versions,  M'hich  have 
"Fashion  not  yourselves  like  unto  this  world,"  and  so  pre- 
serve the  distinction  of  trx'/A'"  ^^'^  f^opft)  (though  they  are  not 
very  happy  in  their  rendering  of  yu£ra/^OjO0oi/(70f,"Be  ye  changed 
in  your  sha2)e).^^  In  this  instance  our  translators  have  fol- 
lowed the  guidance  of  Wicliffe  and  the  Rheims  Version,  which 
have  coyformed  and  reformed.  In  another  jDassage,  Phil.,  ii., 
0  seq.,  where  the  distinction  of  yuop^j)  and  a\y\\xa  is  still  more 
important,  it  is  happily  preserved  in  our  Authorized  Version : 
"Being  in  the /brm  of  God,"  "  took  upon  him  \\\q  form  of  a 
servant,"  "being  found  m  fashion  as  a  man." 

In  other  cases,  where  it  is  even  more  important  for  the 
sense  to  observe  the  distinction  of  synonyms,  we  seem  to 
have  no  choice  but  to  acquiesce  in  the  confusion.  At  an  ear- 
lier stage  of  the  language  it  might  have  been  possible  to  es- 
tablish different  renderings,  but  now  the  English  equivalents 
are  so  stereotyped  that  any  change  seems  impossible.  Thus 
the  rendering  of  ^tci/BoXoc  and  lai^xoviov  by  the  same  word  "dev- 
il" is  a  grievous  loss ;  and  it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that 
Wicliffe's  translation  of  camdviov  by  "  fiend"  was  not  adopted 
by  Tyndale,  in  which  case  it  would  probably  have  become 
the  current  rendering.  Now  the  sense  of  incongruity  would 
make  its  adoption  impossible.  Still  greater  misunderstand- 
ing arises  from  translating  Hades  the  jjlace  of  departed  spir- 
its, and  Gehenna  the  place  of  fire  and  torment,  by  the  same 
word  "  hell,"  and  thus  confusing  two  ideas  wholly  distinct. 
In  such  a  passage  as  Acts  ii.,  27,  31,  the  misconception  thus 
created  is  very  serious.    Is  it  possible  even  now  to  naturalize 


REAL  DISTINCTIONS  OBLITERATED.  79 

the  word  Hades,  and  give  it  a  place  in  onr  version,  or  must 
we  be  satisfied  with  pointing  out  in  the  margin  in  each  case 
whether  the  word  "  hell"  represents  Hades  or  Gehenna  f  An- 
other, though  a  less  important  instance,  is  the  word  "  tem- 
ple," which  represents  both  vaoc,  the  inner  shrine  or  sanctu- 
ary, and  tf|Oov,  the  whole  of  the  sacred  precincts.  Thus,  in  the 
English  Version,  an  utter  confusion  of  localities  results  from 
a  combination  of  two  such  passages  as  Matt.  xxiii.,35,"Whom 
ye  slew  between  the  temple  {jov  vaov)  and  the  altar,"  and 
Matt.  xxi.,12,"Them  that  sold  and  bought  in  the  temple"  (tV 
rw  tepui).  In  the  first  case,  for  tov  raou  St.  Luke  (xi.,51)  uses 
Tou  o'lKov,  "  the  house,"  the  building  which  is,  as  it  were,  the 
abode  of  the  divine  presence ;  but  our  English  translators 
have  boldly  rendered  even  row  o'ikov  by  "  the  temple."  More 
hopeless  still  is  it  to  preserve  the  distinction  between  dvcriaar- 
Ti'jpior,  the  Jewish,  and  /3w^oc.  the  heathen  altar,  the  latter  word 
occurring  only  once  in  the  New  Testament  (Acts  xvii.,  23), 
and  the  poverty  of  our  language  obliging  us  there  to  trans- 
late it  by  the  same  word  as  dvaiaaTitpiov. 

The  contrast  of  Jew  and  Gentile  involved  in  these  last 
words  recalls  another  pair  of  synonyms,  which  present  the 
same  relation  to  each  other,  and  in  which  the  distinction  is 
equally  impracticable  —  Xaog,  used  especially  of  the  chosen 
people  and  in  contradistinction  to  the  Gentiles  (e.g.,  Acts  iv., 
25,  27;  X.,  2;  xxi.,  28;  Rom.  ix.,  25,  26;  1  Pet.  ii.,  10,  etc.), 
and  hrinoc,  denoting  the  people  of  a  heathen  city,  and  more 
particularly  when  gathered  together  in  the  popular  assembly 
(e.g.,  at  Coesarea,  Acts  xii.,  22;*  at  Thessalonica,  Acts  xvii., 
5  ;  at  Ephesus,  Acts  xix.,  30,  33). 

*  A  heathen  multitude,  such  as  would  naturally  he  found  in  a  city  which 
was  the  seat  of  the  Eoman  government,  is  contemplated  here,  as  the  whole  in- 
cident shows.  Hence  Tyndale  and  the  later  versions  rightly  translate  9tov 
<j>Mvf)  Kat  ovK  dvQpwTTov  (ver.  22), "The  voice  of  a  god  and  not  of  a  man," 
where  Wicliffe  has  "The  voice  of  God  and  not  of  man."  When  the  Jews 
of  Ca;sarea  are  especially  intended,  6  Xnoc  is  used  instead  of  o  SiJiioQ :  Acts 
x.,2. 


80       LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

§4. 

Another  class  of  errors,  far  more  numerous  and  much  more 
easily  corrected  than  the  last,  is  due  to  the  imperfect  knowl- 
edge of  Greek  grammar  in  the  age  in  which  our  translators 
lived.  And  here  it  is  instructive  to  observe  how  their  accu- 
racy fails  for  the  most  part  just  at  the  point  where  the  Latin 
language  ceases  to  run  parallel  with  the  Greek.  In  two  re- 
markable instances,  at  all  events,  this  is  the  case.  The  Latin 
language  has  only  one  past  tense  where  the  Greek  has  two; 
a  Roman  was  forced  to  translate  iklCkqaa  and  \t\liXr\Ka  by  the 
same  expression  "  locutus  sum."  Accordingh^,  Ave  find  that 
our  English  translators  make  no  difference  between  the  aorist 
and  the  perfect,  apparently  giving  the  most  obvious  render- 
ing on  each  occasion,  and  not  being  guided  by  any  grammat- 
ical principle  in  the  treatment  of  these  tenses.  Again,  the 
Latin  language  has  no  definite  article,  and  correspondingly,'in 
our  English  Version,  its  presence  or  absence  is  almost  wholly 
disregarded.  Indeed,  it  would  hardly  be  an  exaggeration  to 
say  that,  if  the  translators  had  been  left  to  supply  or  omit  the 
definite  article  in  every  case  according  to  the  probabilities 
of  the  sense  or  the  requirements  of  the  English,  without  any 
aid  from  the  Greek,  the  result  would  have  been  about  as  ac- 
curate as  it  is  at  present. 

I  am  not  bringing  any  charge  against  the  ability  of  our 
translators.  To  demand  from  them  a  knowledge  of  Greek 
Grammar  which  their  age  did  not  possess  would  be  to  de- 
mand an  impossibility.  Accustomed  to  write  and  to  speak 
in  Latin,  they  unconsciously  limited  the  range  and  capacity 
of  the  Greek  by  the  measure  of  the  classical  language  with 
which  they  were  most  familiarly  acquainted.  But  our  own 
more  accurate  knowledge  may  well  be  brought  to  bear  to 
correct  these  deficiencies.  Tyndale  had  said  truly  that  "the 
Greek  tongue  agreeth  more  with  the  English  than  the  Lat- 
in;" and  it  should  be  our  endeavor  to  avail  ourselves  of  this 
agreement,  and  so  to  reproduce  the  meaning  of  the  original 


FAULTS  OF  GRAMMAR.  81 

with  greater  exactness.  I  hope  to  show,  before  I  have  done, 
that  it  is  no  mere  pedantic  affectation  which  would  prompt 
ns  to  correct  these  faults,  but  that  important  interests,  some- 
times doctrinal,  sometimes  historical,  are  involved  in  their  ad- 
justment. 

1.  Under  the  head  of  faulty  grammar,  the  tenses  deserve  to 
be  considered  first.  And  here  I  Avill  begin  with  the  defect 
on  which  I  have  already  touched — the  confusion  of  the  aorist 
and  the/><2?yec^  It  is  not  meant  to  assert  that  the  aorist  can 
always  be  rendered  by  an  aorist  and  the  perfect  by  a  perfect 
in  English.*  No  two  languages  coincide  exactly  in  usage, 
and  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  difference.  But  still  I 
think  it  will  be  seen  that  our  version  may  be  greatly  im- 
proved in  this  respect  without  violence  to  the  English  idiom. 

Thus,  in  John  i.,  3,  X'^P'C  oirou  eye  veto  ohdt  tV  o  yiyovev,  or 
in  2  Cor.  xii.,  17,18,  ju//  -tva  wi'  «7re(7ra\/v'a  Trpog  ujuac,  3i  avTOv 
iTrXfoieKTrjcra  vfiag'^  TzapemXeaa  Tiroy  cat  avraTreareiXa  rbv  aceX- 
(poy,  or  in  Col.  i.,16,l7,  tv  ah-^  tKriadr)  to.  iravTa  .  .  .  .  tci  ttuv- 
-a  Bt'  avTov  ml  eiq  civtuv  Etcriarai,  is  there  any  reason  why  the 
tenses  should  not  have  been  preserved,  so  that  the  distinction 
between  the  historical  fact  and  the  permanent  result  would 
have  appeared  in  all  three  cases?  Yet  our  translators  have 
rendered  cytVfro,  yiyorev  equally  by  "  were  made"  in  the  first 
passage,  cnrearaXm,  cnritrreiXa  by  "  I  sent"  in  the  second,  and 
EKTiadr],  tKTiaTai  by  "  were  created"  in  the  third.  Again,  in 
1  John  iv.,  9,10,14,  airiaTaXiCfv^  cnriarEiXey,  cnriiTTaXKev,  are  all 
rendered  in  an  aoristic  sense  "  he  sent,"  though  the  appropri- 
ateness of  either  tense  in  its  own  context  is  sufficiently  notice- 
able. On  the  other  hand,  in  an  exactly  parallel  case,  1  Cor. 
ix.,  22,  lyEvofiEv  toIq  affdit'Eaiv  uadEvtjg  'iva  tovq  uuQeveiq  KEph'iaio' 
Toig  TrdiTtv  ytyora  TrcuTo,  where  in  like  manner  the  aorist  gives 
an  isolated  past  incident,  and  the  perfect  sums  up  the  total 
present  result,  the  distinction  of  tenses  is  happily  preserved, 

*  A  comparison  of  English  with  the  languages  of  Continental  Europe  will 
illustrate  the  difference  of  idiom  in  this  respect. 


82       LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FEESH  JREVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

"To  tlie  weak  became  I  weak, that  I  might  gain  the  weak:  I 
am  made  all  things  to  all  men :"  though  "I  «m  become'''  would 
have  been  preferable,  as  preserving  the  same  verb  in  both 
cases.  But  I  fear  that  this  correct  rendering  must  be  ascribed 
to  accident;  for  the  haphazard  way  in  which  these  tenses  are 
treated  will  appear  as  well  from  the  instances  already  quoted 
as  from  such  a  passage  as  2  Cor.  vii.,  13, 14:  "Therefore  Ave 
were  comforted  {TrapaKeKXi'iixeda)  in  your  comfort,  yea,  and  ex- 
ceedingly the  more  joyed  we  {lx^pT)iiiv)  for  the  joy  of  Titus, 
because  his  spirit  was  refreshed  {avaniwavTai)  by  you  all.  For 
if  I  have  boasted  (KEKavxrifiai)  any  thing  to  him  of  you,  I  am 
not  ashamed  (KarriaxvvQriv),  but  as  Ave  speak  {eXaX^jfrafXEr)  all 
things  to  you  in  truth,  even  so  our  boasting  Avhich  I  made 
before  Titus  ([>/]  eVi  Tirov)  is  found  {kyunjQri)  a  truth." 

Such  passages  as  these  bring  out  this  weakness  of  our  trans- 
lation the  more  strikingly  because  the  tenses  appear  in  juxta- 
position. But  it  is  elscAvhere  that  the  most  serious  injury  is 
inflicted  on  the  sense.  I  Avill  give  examples  of  the  aorist  first, 
and  I  hope  to  make  it  clear  that  more  than  the  interests  of 
exact  scholarship  are  concerned  in  the  accurate  rendering. 

If  I  read  St.Paul  aright,  the  correct  understanding  of  Avhole 
paragraphs  depends  on  the  retention  of  the  aoristic  sense,  and 
the  substitution  of  a  perfect  confuses  his  meaning,  obliterating 
the  main  idea,  and  introducing  other  conceptions  which  are 
alien  to  the  passages.  As  illustrations  of  this,  take  two  pas- 
sages, Rom.  vi.,1  seq. ;  Col.  ii.,  11  seq.  In  the  first  passage, 
aTTtQavo^iEv  (ver.  2),  i(iaTTTiaQrifi£v  (A'cr.  3),  avyeTCKprjfxey  (ver.  4), 
(Tvreff-avpdidri  (ver.  6),  ainQavonEV  (A'Cr.  8),  vTnjKovffare  {\er.  17), 
tSovXiodrjTE  rrj  ^iKaioavvr)  [vev.  IS),  eXevdepiijdiyrsg  cnro  T?jg  ufxapTiac, 
hovXdjQivTEQ  Tu  0fw  (A'Cr.  22),  idnva-u>dr]T£  (vii.,  4),  Karrfpyfjdrjfxey, 
airoQavov-iQ  (xer.  6).  In  the  second  passage,  Trepurp.^fQr^Tt  (ii., 
11),  avvra^ivTEc^  (Tvi'T)ytp6i]re  (ver.  12),  avvi^woTvoir^rnv  {\QV.  13), 
shetyfidriaev  {\er.  15),  airEdcD'E-e  (xev.  20),  (Tvvr}yipdT}TE  (iii.,1),  citte- 
dat'ETE  (ver.  3).  Now  the  consistency  Avith  which  St.Paul  uses 
the  aorist  in  these  tAVO  doctrinal  passages  Avhich  treat  of  the 
same  subject  (scarcely  ever  interposing  a  perfect,  and  then 


FAULTS  OF  ORAMMAR.  83 

only  for  exceptional  reasons  which  are  easily  intelligible)  is 
very  remarkable:  "Ye  died, ye  were  buried,  ye  were  raised, 
ye  were  made  alive ;"  and  the  argument  might  be  very  much 
strengthened  by  reference  to  other  passages  where  the  apos- 
tle prefers  the  aorist  in  treating  of  the  same  topics.*  In  short, 
St.Paul  regards  this  change — from  sin  to  righteousness,  from 
bondage  to  freedom,  from  death  to  life — as  summed  up  in  one 
definite  act  of  the  past :  potentially  to  all  men  in  our  Lord's 
Passion  and  Resurrection,  actually  to  each  individual  man 
when  he  accepts  Christ,  is  baptized  into  Christ.  Then  he  is 
made  righteous  by  being  incorporated  into  Christ's  righteous- 
ness, he  dies  once  for  all  to  sin,  he  lives  henceforth  forever  to 
God.  This  is  the  ideal.  Practically  we  know  that  the  death 
to  sin  and  the  life  to  righteousness  are  inchoate,  imperfect, 
gradual,  meagerly  realized  even  by  the  most  saintly  of  men 
in  this  life ;  but  St.Paul  sets  the  matter  in  this  ideal  light  to 
force  upon  the  consciences  of  his  hearers  the  fact  that  an  en- 
tire change  came  over  them  when  they  became  Christians, 
that  the  knowledge  and  the  grace  then  vouchsafed  to  them 
did  not  leave  them  where  they  were,  that  they  are  not,  and 
can  not  be  their  former  selves,  and  that  it  is  a  contradiction 
of  their  very  being  to  sin  any  more.  It  is  the  definiteness, 
the  absoluteness  of  this  change,  considered  as  a  historical  cri- 
sis, Avhich  forms  the  central  idea  of  St.  Paul's  teaching,  and 
which  the  aorist  marks.  We  can  not,  therefore,  afford  to  ob- 
scure this  idea  by  disregarding  the  distinctions  of  grammar. 
Yet  in  our  English  Version  it  is  a  mere  chance  whether  in 
such  cases  the  aorist  is  translated  as  an  aorist. 

The  misconception  which  arises  from  this  neglect  of  the 
aorist  has  vitally  affected  the  interpretation  of  one  passage. 
In  2  Cor.  v.,  14, "If  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead''''  ([tt] 
t'lq  VTrep  iravTwv  cnridayei',  lipa  o't  Travng  airidayoy),  our  version  sub- 

*  For  instance,  Gal.  ii.,  16, 17, 18, 19,  21  ;  iii.,  3,  27  ;  v.  13,  24  (ol  tov  Xpiff- 
Tov  rrjv  aapKa  IffTavpaxrav)  ;  Ephes.  i.,ll,  13  ;  ii.,  5,  6  ((Twvt^woTroiJ/fffv,  avvfj- 
ytipev,  avviKaOiffep),  13,  14  ;  iv.,  1 , 4,  7,  30  (i(T(t>payia9i]Tt)  ;  Col.  i.,  13  (fppv- 
oaro,  piTiaTTftyiv) ;  iii.,  15  ;  2  Tim.  i.,  7,  9  ;  Tit.  iii.,  5  {icuiaiv)  :  see  also  1 
Pet.  i.,  3, 18;  ii.,21  ;  iii.,  9. 


84      LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  EEVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

stitutes  the  state  of  death  for  the  fact  of  dying,  and  thus  in- 
terprets the  death  to  be  a  death  through  sin  instead  of  a  death 
to  sin.  The  reference  in  the  context  to  the  old  things  pass- 
ing away,  and  the  Language  of  St.Paul  elsewhere,  e.*/.,  Rom. 
vi.,  2,  8  ;  viii.,  6  ;  Col.  ii.,  20  ;  iii.,  3,  already  quoted,  seem  to 
show  that  the  true  sense  is  what  would  naturally  be  suggest- 
ed by  the  correct  rendering  of  the  aorist;  that  all  men  have 
participated  potentially  in  Christ's  death,  have  died  with  him 
to  their  former  selves  and  to  sin,  and  are  therefore  bound  to 
lead  a  new  life.* 

Not  very  unlike  the  passages  which  I  have  been  consider- 
ing iS  Acts  xix.,  2,  £t  Tryevfia  uyior  iXafjETS  TrKTrevaavrec,  Avhich 
our  translators  give  "Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since 
ye  believed  ?"  It  should  run, "  Did  ye  receive  the  Holy  Ghost 
when  ye  believed  ?"  for  the  aorist  oiimrTEveiv  is  used  very  com- 
monly, not  of  the  continuous  state  of  belief,  but  of  the  definite 
act  of  accepting  the  faith;  e. (7.,  Acts  xi.,  17;  Rom.  xiii.,  11 ; 
1  Cor.  iii.,  5;  xv.,2;  Gal.  ii.,  7,  etc. 

The  instances  which  have  been  given  hitherto  more  or  less 
directly  affect  doctrine.  In  the  two  next  examples,  which  oc- 
cur in  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  a  historical  con- 
nection is  severed  by  the  mistranslation  of  the  aorist.  In 
Matt,  ii.,  15,£^  Aiyi/Trrou  e/caXf  era  tov  v'lov  fxov  is  rendered  "Out 
of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  son;"  but,  turning  to  the  original 
passage  in  Hosea  (xi.,  1),  we  find  that  the  proper  aoristic  sense 
must  be  restored :  "  When  Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved 
him,  and  called  mj  son  out  of  Egypt."  Again,  in  2  Cor.  iv., 
1 3,  tVi'oTfvo-a  cto  iXaXTjaa  is  given  " I  believed,  and  therefore 
have  I  spoken,''^  a  rendering  unsuited  to  its  position  in  the 
LXX.  of  Psa.  cxvi.,  10  (cxv.,  1)  whence  it  is  quoted. 

*  The  only  passages  which  would  seem  to  ftivor  the  other  interpretation  are 
1  Cor.  XV.,  22,  Iv  rt^'ABdn  TrdvTEg  dTro6vi]ffi:ov(rti', and  Rom.  v.,  l~>,  ei  yap  -(p 
TOV  ivoQ  TrapaTiTiitfiaTi  01  ttoXXoi  diriQavov.  Yet,  even  if  this  intei'pretation 
were  adopted,  the  aoristic  sense  of  diriOavov  ought  to  be  preserved,  because 
the  potential  death  of  all  men  in  Adam  coiTesponds  to  the  potential  life  of  all 
men  in  Christ,  and  is  regarded  as  having  been  effected  once  for  all  in  Adam's 
transgression,  as  in  Kom.  v.,  \'>. 


FAULTS  OF  GRAMMAR. 


85 


Such  examples  as  these,  however,  are  very  far  from  exliaust- 
ing  the  subject.  In  one  passage  the  aorist  KTt'itraadai  is  treat- 
ed as  if  KeKTi'iadai,  and  rendered  "  possess"  instead  of"  acquire," 
in  defiance  of  a  distinction  which  it  does  not  require  the  eru- 
dition of  Lord  Macaulay's  school-boy  to  appreciate:  Luke 
xxi.,  19,  £v  -fj  virofiorr]  vfiwy  Kn/aaade  [1.  krfjaeirde]  Tag  xpv^ag  vfiQy, 
"  In  your  patience  j^ossess  ye  your  souls."  Errors,  however, 
occur  also  in  this  same  word  in  1  Thess.  iv.,  4,  where  the  pres- 
ent is  similarly  treated,  dcivai  iKaarov  vjiwv  -o  iav-ou  cricevog  Kraa- 
dai  kv  &yiatTfi(f  kai  rifi^, "  that  every  one  of  you  should  know 
how  to  possess  his  vessel  in  sanctification  and  honor ;"  and 
again,  in  Luke  xviii.,  12,  where  oVa  Krwpac  is  translated  "all 
that  1  possess  ;'"'  and  thus  it  seems  probable  that  the  mistake 
first  arose  from  a  misapprehension  of  the  meaning  oi\rd(Tdai 
rather  than  from  a  direct  confusion  of  tenses.  Yet  even  so 
this  very  misapprehension  must  have  been  owing  to  the  ina- 
bility to  see  how  the  sense  "  possess"  is  derived  from  the  prop- 
er force  of  the  perfect.* 

The  treatment  of  the  jierfect  is  almost  equally  faulty  with 
the  treatment  of  the  aorist.  Thus,  in  1  Cor.  xv.,  4  seq.,  St. 
Paul  lays  the  stress  of  his  argument  on  the  fact  that  Christ 
is  rise?!.  This  peifect  tyt'tyeprai  is  repeated  six  times  within  a 
few  verses  (ver.  4, 12, 13, 14, 16,  IV,  20),  while  the  aorist  I'lyipdi] 
is  not  once  used.  The  point  is  not  that  Christ  0)ice  rose  from 
the  grave,  but  that,  having  risen,  he  lives  forever,  as  a  first-fruit 
or  earnest  of  the  resurrection.  Indeed,  the  contrast  between 
the  tenses  o-t  t-acbT]  cat  on  ty^yep-ai  (ver.  4)  throws  out  this 
idea  in  still  stronger  relief  In  the  13th  and  following  verses 
this  conception  becomes  so  patent  on  the  face  of  St.  Paul's 
language  that  our  translators  could  not  fail  to  see  it,  and  ac- 

*  In  Matt.  X.,  9,  fiff  KrfjtTTiaOe  ^^pverdr,  the  older  versions  generally  render 
KTTjmiaOe  by  "possess,"  for  which  the  A.  V.  substitutes  "provide,"  with  the 
marginal  alternative  "  get ;"  and  in  Acts  i.,  18,  iKri^ryiTo  x*^piov,  the  oldest 
versions  have  "hath  possessed,"  for  which  the  A.V.  (after  the  Bishops'  and 
Geneva  Bibles)  substitutes  "  purchased."  These  facts  seem  to  show  that  the 
proper  distinction  between  KraaOai  and  KeKTrjaOat  (which  latter  does  not  occur 
in  the  New  Testament)  was  beginning  to  dawn  upon  Biblical  scholars. 


g6       LIOHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

cordingly  from  this  point  onward  the  perfect  is  correctly 
translated ;  but  the  iact  that  in  the  two  earliest  instances 
where  it  occurs  (ver.  4,12),  lyi'iyep-ai  is  treated  as  an  aorist, 
"he  rose,"  shows  that  they  did  not  regard  the  rules  of  gram- 
mar, but  were  guided  only  by  the  apparent  demands  of  the 
sense.  Another  example,  closely  allied  to  the  last,  occurs  in 
Heb.  vii.,  14, 22.  The  context  lays  stress  on  the  itnchcmgeable 
priesthood:  "Thou  art  a  priest  forever,"  "He  continueth  ever" 
(ver.  21,  24),  Hence,  in  ver.  14,  the  writer  says,  TrpocrjXoy  on 
l^'lovSa  ayareTaXice  v  6  Kvpioc  »/f  w*',  and  in  ver.  22,  /caret  toctouto 
Kal  KpiiTTovoQ  diadijKriQ  yiyovtv  'iyyvog  ^Irjaovg.  But  these  refer- 
ences to  present  existence  are  obliterated  in  the  A.  V.,  which 
substitutes  aorists  in  both  cases, "  Our  Lord  sjyrang  out  of 
Juda,"  "  icas  Jesus  made  a  surety." 

These  instances  have  a  more  or  less  direct  doctrinal  bear- 
ing. The  examples  which  shall  be  given  next  are  important 
in  a  historical  aspect;  In  the  passage  (2  Cor.  xii.,  2  seq.)  in 
which  St.Paul  describes  the  visions  vouchsafed  to  one  "caught 
up  to  the  third  heaven,"  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  he  re- 
fers to  himself.  This  appears  not  only  from  the  connection 
of  the  context,  but  also  (in  the  original)  from  the  mode  of  ex- 
pression, ol^^a  aydpu)iTOV,  olha  tov  toiovtov  at'dpwirov.  I  have  al' 
ready  pointed  out  (p.  50)  the  capricious  variations  in  the  ren- 
derings of  oTda,  olcsy,  in  the  context  of  this  passage.  But  in 
these  two  clauses  our  translators  are  not  only  capricious,  but 
absolutely  wrong,  for  they  give  to  olda  an  aoristic  sense  which 
it  can  not  possibly  have,  '■'■IJcneio  a  man,"  "I/cneio  such  a 
man,"  thus  disconnecting  the  actual  speaker  from  the  object 
of  the  vision,  and  suggesting  to  the  English  reader  the  idea 
that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  some  past  acquaintance. 

Again,  St.  Matthew,  in  three  several  passages  (i.,22;  xxi., 
4 ;  xxvi.,  56),  introduces  a  reference  to  prophecies  in  the  Old 
Testament  which  have  had  their  fulfillment  in  incidents  of 
the  Gospel  history  by  the  words  rovro  U  [oXov]  yiyovtv  Iva 
7r\jjpw0?}  (or  'lya  TrXrjpioduxny),  k.t.X.  In  all  three  passages,  it  will 
be  observed,  the  evangelist  has  the  perfect  yeyoyev,  "^s  come 


FAULTS  OF  GRAMMAR.  37 

to  pass ;"  and  in  all  three  our  English  Version  gives  it  as  an 
aorist, "  icas  done."  Now  it  can  not  be  urged  (as  it  might 
with  some  plausibility  in  the  case  of  the  Apocalypse)  that  St. 
Matthew  is  careless  about  the  use  of  the  aorist  and  the  per- 
fect, or  that  he  has  any  special  fondness  for  ylyovEv.  On  the 
contrary,  though  the  aorist  (tytVfro,  yEviadm,  etc.)  frequently 
occurs  in  this  Gospel,  there  are  not  many  examples  of  the 
j)erfect  yiyovev,  and  in  almost  every  instance  our  version  is 
faulty.  In  xix.,  8,  air  apxvc  oh  yiyovEv  oiJrwe,  the  aoristic  ren- 
dering, "From  the  beginning  it  xoas  not  so,"  entirely  misleads 
the  English  reader  as  to  the  sense;  in  xxiv.,  21,o7a  oh  yiyovev 
uir  apxvQ,  "  Such  as  hath  not  been  from  the  beginning,"  would 
(I  suppose)  be  universally  accepted  as  an  improvement  on 
the  present  translation,  "  Such  as  teas  not  from  the  begin- 
ning;" and  lastly,  in  xxv.,  6,  K-pavyt)  yeyovev,  the  startling  ef- 
fect of  the  sudden  surprise  is  expressed  by  the  change  of 
tense  from  the  aorist, "  a  cry  is  raised,''^  and  ought  not  to  be 
neglected.  When,  therefore,  this  evangelist  in  three  distinct 
places  introduces  the  fulfillment  of  a  prophecy  by  yiyofev,  the 
fact  can  not  be  without  meaning.  In  two  of  these  passages 
editors  sometimes  attach  the  tovto  de  oXov  yiyovzv  to  the  words 
of  the  previous  speaker  —  of  the  angel  in  i.,  22,  and  of  our 
Lord  in  xxvi,,  56 — in  order  to  explain  the  perfect.  But  this 
connection  is  very  awkward  even  in  these  two  cases,  and 
wholly  out  of  the  question  in  the  remaining  instance  (xxi,, 
4).  Is  not  the  true  solution  this :  that  these  tenses  preserve 
the  freshness  of  the  earliest  catechetical  narrative  of  the  Gos- 
pel history,  when  the  narrator  was  not  so  far  removed  from 
the  fact  that  it  was  unnatural  for  him  to  say  "This  is  come 
to  pass  ?"  I  find  this  hypothesis  confirmed  when  I  turn  to 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  He,  too,  adopts  a  nearly  identical 
form  of  words  on  one  occasion  to  introduce  a  prophecy,  but 
with  a  significant  change  of  tense :  xix.,  36,  tyt  i'£ro  yap  ravra 
'iva  >/  ypa(/)>)  -Kk^phiQi^.  To  one  writing  at  the  close  of  the  cen- 
tury, the  events  of  the  Lord's  life  would  appear  as  a  historic 
past;  and  so  the  yiyovtv  of  the  earlier  evangelist  is  exchanged 
for  the  iyivtTo  of  the  later. 


88      LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FUESE  REVISION  OF  THE  X.  TEST. 

An  able  American  writer  on  the  English  language,  criticis- 
ing a  previous  eflbrt  at  revision,  remarks  somewhat  satiric- 
ally that,  judging  from  this  revised  version,  the  tenses  "are 
coming  to  have  in  England  a  force  which  they  have  not  now 
in  America."*  Xow  I  have  already  conceded  that  allowance 
must  be  made  from  time  to  time  for  difference  of  idiom  in 
rendering  aorists  and  perfects,  and  I  do  not  know, to  what 
passages  in  the  revision  issued  by  the  Five  Clergymen  this 
criticism  is  intended  to  apj^ly.  But  it  is  important  that  our 
new  revisers  should  not  defer  hastily  to  such  authority,  and 
close  too  eagerly  with  a  license  which  may  be  abused.  The 
fact  is,  that  our  judgment  in  this  matter  is  apt  to  be  misled 
by  two  disturbing  influences :  we  must  be  on  our  guard  alike 
against  the  idola  fori  and  against  the  idola  speeus. 

J^irsf,  the  language  of  the  Authorized  Version  is  so  wrought 
into  the  fabric  of  our  minds  by  long  habit,  that  the  corre- 
sponding conception  is  firmly  lodged  there  also.  Thus  it  hap- 
pens that  when  a  change  of  words  is  offered  to  us,  we  uncon- 
sciously apply  the  new  words  to  the  old  conception,  and  are 
dissatisfied  with  them  because  they  seem  incongruous;  and 
perhaps  we  conclude  that  English  idiom  is  violated  because 
they  do  not  mean  what  we  expect  them  to  mean,  not  being 
prepared  to  make  the  necessary  effort  required  to  master  the 
new  conception  involved  in  them.  Idola  fori  omnium  mo- 
lestissima  sunt  quoe  exfcedere  verborum  et  nominum  se  insin- 
tiarunt  in  intellectum. 

But,  secondly,  the  idols  of  our  cave  are  scarcely  less  mis- 
leading than  the  idols  of  the  market-place.  Living  in  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  we  can  not,  without  an  ef- 
fort, transfer  ourselves  to  the  modes  of  thought  and  of  lan- 
guage which  w'ere  common  in  the  first.  The  mistranslation 
from  which  this  digression  started  affords  a  good  instance  of 

*  Marsh's  Lectures  on  the  Englisli  Language,  No.  xxviii.,  p.  G33,  speaking 
of  the  translation  of  St.  John  by  the  Five  Clergymen.  The  passage  is  quoted 
by  Bp.  EUicott  (Revision  of  the  English  New  Testament,  p.  20),  who  seems 
half  disposed  to  acquiesce  in  the  justice  of  the  criticism. 


FAULTS  OF  OUAMMAli.  89 

this  source  of  misapprehension.  We  should  not  ourselves  say 
"  This  is  come  to  pass"  in  referring  to  facts  which  happened 
more  than  eighteen  centuries  ago,  and  therefore  we  oblige 
the  eye-witnesses  to  hold  our  own  language,  and  say  "This 
came  to  pass." 

From  the  perfect  tense  I  pass  on  to  \\\e  j^^'^sent.  And  here 
I  find  a  still  better  illustration  of  the  errors  into  which  we 
are  led  by  following  the  idola  sjjecus.  In  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  the  sacred  writer,  when  speaking  of  the  Temple  serv- 
ices and  the  Mosaic  ritual,  habitually  uses  the  present  tense : 
C.</.,  ix.,  6,  7,  9,  el(Tia(7iy  o'l  lepeTg,  Trpocrfipei  virsp  tavrou,  cwpci  re 
Kal  Bvaiai  Trpoatpipoy-ai;  X.,  1,  Qvaiaiq  ug  Trpo(T([)ipov(TiJ'.  K^OW 
I  do  not  say  that  this  is  absolutely  conclusive  as  showing 
that  the  epistle  was  written  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem, but  it  is  certainly  a  valuable  indication  of  an  early  date, 
and  should  not  have  been  obliterated.  Yet  our  translators 
in  such  cases  almost  invariably  substitute  a  past  tense,  as  in 
the  passages  just  quoted,  "the  priests  went  in,"  "he  offered 
for  himself,"  "  tcere  offered  both  gifts  and  sacrifices,"  "  sacri- 
fices which  they  offered.''^  And  similarly,  in  ix.,  18,  they  ren- 
der iyiciKaiPiaTai  "  toas  dedicated,"  and  in  ix.,  9,  rdy  icaipov  -bv 
lyearrjm-a,  "the  time  then  present."  Only  in  very  rare  in- 
stances do  they  allow  the  present  to  stand,  and  for  the  most 
part  in  such  cases  alone  where  it  has  no  direct  historical  bear- 
ing. The  Temple  worship  was  a  thing  of  the  remote  past  to 
themselves  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  they  forced  the 
writer  of  the  epistle  to  speak  their  own  language. 

Another  and  a  more  important  example  of  the  present 
tense  is  the  rendering  of  ol  aw^onevoi.  In  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament  salvation  is  a  thing  of  the  past,  a  thing  of 
the  present,  and  a  thing  of  the  future.  St.  Paul  says  some- 
times "Ye  (or  we)  Avere  saved"  (Rom.  viii.,24),  or  "  Ye  have 
been  saved"  (Ephes.  ii.,  5, 8) ;  sometimes  "Ye  are  being  saved" 
(1  Cor.  XV.,  2),  and  sometimes  "Ye  shall  be  saved"  (Rom.  x., 
9,13).  It  is  important  to  observe  this,  because  we  are  thus 
taught  that  aw-tjpia  involves  a  moral  condition  which  must 


90      LIGIITFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

have  "begun  already,  though  it  M'ill  receive  its  final  accom- 
plishment hereafter.  Godliness,  righteousness,  is  life,  is  salva- 
tion. And  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  the  divorce  of 
morality  and  religion  must  be  fostered  and  encouraged  by 
failing  to  note  this,  and  so  laying  the  whole  stress  either  on 
the  past  or  on  the  future  —  on  the  Jirst  call  or  on  ihQ  final 
change.  It  is  therefore  important  that  the  idea  of  salvation 
as  a  rescue  from  sin  through  the  knowledge  of  God  in  Christ, 
and  therefore  a  progressive  condition,  a  present  state,  should 
not  be  obscured ;  and  we  can  not  but  regret  such  a  transla- 
tion as  Acts  ii.,-47, "  The  Lord  added  to  the  Church  daily  such 
as  should  he  saved.,  where  the  Greek  tovq  ffio^o/iii'ovQ  implies  a 
different  idea.  In  other  passages,  Luke  xiii.,  23  ;  1  Cor.  i.,  18 ; 
2  Cor.  ii.,15 ;  Rev.  xxi.,  24  (omitted  in  some  texts),  where  ol 
(Tbji^oneroi  occurs,  the  renderings  "  be  saved,  are  saved"  may 
perhaps  be  excused  by  the  requirements  of  the  English  lan- 
guage, though  these  again  suggest  rather  a  complete  act  than 
a  continuous  and  progressive  state. 

In  other  cases  the  substitution  of  a  past  tense  inflicts  a 
slighter Jbut  still  a  perceptible  injury.  It  obscures  the  vivid- 
ness of  the  narrative  or  destroys  the  relation  of  the  sentences. 
Thus,  in  Matt,  iii.,  1,13,  the  appearing  of  John  the  Baptist 
and  of  our  Lord  are  introduced  in  the  same  language:  cv  rale 
{/lAtpaig  tKuvaiQ  Trapayiverai  'IdJavrrig  6  ftaTrriaTi]c,  and  tote  Trap- 
ayiviraL  v  'Irjorovg.  It  is  a  misfortune  that  we  are  obliged 
to  translate  the  expression  irapayivErai  by  the  very  ordinary 
word  "  come ;"  but  the  English  Version,  by  rendering  the  first 
sentence  "  In  those  days  came  John,"  while  it  gives  the  sec- 
ond correctly, "  Then  cometh  Jesus,"  quite  unnecessarily  im- 
pairs both  the  vigor  and  the  parallelism  of  the  narrative.  Ex- 
actly similar  to  this  last  instance  is  another  in  St.  Lake  vii., 
33,  34,  eXijXvdev  yap  'Iwavvz/c  o  flaTTTiarrjg  .  .  .  iXtjXvdey  6  v'log  tov 
avdpwTTov,  where  again  the  first  eXijXvder  is  translated  came, 
the  second  is  come. 

In  rendering  imperfect  tenses,  it  is  for  the  most  part  im- 
possible to  give  the  full  sense  without  encumbering  the  En- 


FAULTS  OF  GEAMMAH.  91 

glish  idiom  unpleasantly.  But  in  exceptional  usages,  as,  for 
instance,  where  the  imperfect  has  the  inchoate,  tentative  force, 
its  meaning  can  be  preserved  without  any  such  sacrifice,  and 
ought  not  to  be  obliterated.  Thus,  in  Luke  i.,  59,  kKaXow 
avTo  Zaxapiav  is  not  "They  called  it  (the  child)  Zacharias," 
but  "  They  were  for  calling  it,"  "  They  loould  have  called  it." 
Closely  allied  to  this  is  the  conditional  sense  of  the  imper- 
fect, which  again  our  English  translators  have  rendered  inad- 
equately or  not  at  all.  Thus,  in  Gal.  iv.,  20,  i'ldsXov  ce  ivapiivai 
Trpog  vfiag  apri  is  not  "  I  desire  to  be  present  with  you  now,"  as 
our  translators  have  it,  but  "  I  coidd  have  desired ;"  and  in 
Matt,  iii.,14,  6  'Itjjavyrjg  cukujXvev  avruy  is  not  '^^  John  forbade 
him,"  but  "  John  icoidd  have  Jdndered  him."  Again,  in  TJom. 
ix.,  3,  r]V')(('jfir)v  yap  avuQe^a  e'lvai  avroc  iyio  cnro  rov  XpitTTOv,  the 
moral  difficulty  disappears  when  the  words  are  correctly 
translated,  not,  as  the  English  Version,  "I  coidd  wish  that 
myself  were  accursed  for  Christ,"  but  "I  coidd  have  wished," 
etc. ;  because  the  imperfect  itself  implies  that  it  is  impossible 
to  entertain  such  a  wish,  things  being  Avhat  they  are.  Again, 
in  Acts  XXV.,  22,  ijjovXofiriy  Kal  avrvQ  roii  apdpojnov  aicowTCii,  the 
language  of  Agrippa  is  much  more  courteous  and  delicate 
than  our  English  version  represents  it.  He  does  not  say  "I 
v:oxdd  also  hear  the  man  myself,"  but  "I  myself  also  coidd 
have  wished  to  hear  the  man,"  if  the  favor  had  not  been  too 
great  to  ask.  Elsewhere  our  version  is  more  accurate,  e.g., 
Acts  vii.,  26,  aw^XXaacjev  avrovg  ek  dpi]vr]v^  '•'■  XCOldd  have  set 
them  at  one  again."* 

2.  If  the  rendering  of  the  tenses  affords  wide  scope  for  im- 
provement, this  is  equally  the  case  with  the  treatment  of  the 
definite  curticle.  And  here  again  I  think  it  will  be  seen  that 
theology  is  almost  as  deeply  concerned  as  scholarship  in  the 
correction  of  errors.  In  illustration,  let  me  refer  to  the  pas- 
sage which  the  great  authority  of  Bentley  brought  into  prom- 

*  Here,  however,  our  translators  appear  to  have  read  avvriXaeiv,  so  that 
their  accuracy  is  purely  accidental. 


92       LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

inence,  and  whicli  has  often  been  adduced  since  his  time.  In 
Rom.  v.,  15-19,  there  is  a  sustained  contrast  between  "  the  one 
(6  fic)"  and  "  the  many  {ol  ttoXXoi)  ;"  but  in  the  English  Version 
the  definite  article  is  systematically  omitted:  "If,  through 
the  offense  of  one,  many  be  dead,"  and  so  throughout  the 
passage,  closing  with,  "For  as  by  o?ie  mail's  disobedience 
many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall 
manr/  be  made  righteous."  In  place  of  any  comment  of  my 
own,  I  will  quote  Bentley's  words.  Pleading  for  the  correct 
rendering,  he  says :  "  By  this  accurate  version  some  hurtful 
mistakes  about  partial  redemption  and  absolute  reprobation 
liad  been  happily  prevented.  Our  English  readers  had  then 
seen,  what  several  of  the  fathers  saw  and  testified,  that  ol 
TToWoj,  the  many,  in  an  antithesis  to  the  one,  are  equivalent  to 
TTcoTfc,  all,\n  ver.  12,  and  comprehend  the  whole  multitude, 
the  entire  species  of  mankind,  exclusive  only  of  the  one.''''* 
In  other  words,  the  benefits  of  Christ's  obedience  extend  to 
all  men  potentially.  It  is  only  human  self  will  which  places 
limits  to  its  operation. 

Taken  in  connection  with  a  previious  illustration  (p.  82  seq.), 
this  second  example  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  will  en- 
able us  to  estimate  the  amount  of  injury  which  is  inflicted 
on  St.  Paul's  argument  by  grammatical  inaccuracies.  Both 
the  two  great  lines  of  doctrinal  teaching  respecting  the  Re- 
demption, which  run  through  this  epistle — the  one  relating 
to  the  mode  of  its  operation,  the  other  to  the  extent  of  its  ap- 
])lication — are  more  or  less  misrepresented  in  our  English 
Version  owing  to  this  cause.  The  former  is  obscured,  as  we 
saw,  by  a  confusion  of  tenses,  while  the  latter  is  distorted  by 
a  disregard  of  the  definite  article. 

This,  however,  is  the  usual  manner  of  treating  the  article 
when  connected  with  ttoWoI  and  similar  words;  e.g., Matt, 
xxiv.,  12,  "  The  love  of  many  shall  wax  cold,"  where  the  pict- 
ure in  the  original  is  much  darker;  -wv  ttoWwv,  "the  many," 
the  vast  majority  of  the  disciples;  or  again,Phil.  i.,  14,  "And 
*  Bentley's  Works,  iii.,  p.  241  (ed.Dyce). 


FAULTS  OF  GRAM2IAE.  93 

many  of  the  bretliren  in  the  Lord  waxing  confident,"  where 
the  error  is  even  greater,  for  St.Paul  distinctly  writes  rove 
irXeiovac,  "  the  greater  part."  Similarly,  also,  it  is  neglected 
before  Xonrog:  e.g.,  Luke  xxiv.,10,  "  And  other  women  that 
were  with  them"  {al  Xonral  avv  avToiq) ;  1  Cor.  ix.,  4,  "To  lead 
about  a  sister,  a  wife,  as  well  as  other  apostles"  (we  f^ou  ol 
XoiTTol  cnroaroXoi) ',  2  Cor.  xii.,  13,  "  Ye  were  inferior  to  other 
churches"  {tciq  Xonrag  eKKXTjcTlag) ;  in  all  which  passages  histori- 
cal facts  are  obscured  or  perverted  by  the  neglect  of  the  ar- 
ticle. And  again,  in  2  Cor.  ii.,  6,  where  >/  tTrirtyum  >/  vttu  twv 
irXiLovwv  is  rendered  "  this  punishment  which  was  inflicted  of 
inany^''  the  conception  of  a  regular  judicial  assembly,  in  which 
the  penalty  is  decided  by  the  vote  of  the  majority^  disapj^ears. 

Nor  is  the  passage  quoted  by  Bentley  the  only  example  in 
which  the  broad  features  of  St.  Paul's  teaching  sufier  from  an 
indifierence  to  the  presence  or  the  absence  of  the  definite 
article.  The  distinction  between  rd/xoe  and  6  vo^og  is  very 
commonly  disregai'ded,  and  yet  it  is  full  of  significance.  Be- 
hind the  concrete  representation — the  Mosaic  law  itself — St. 
Paul  sees  an  imperious  principle,  an  overwhelming  presence, 
antagonistic  to  grace,  to  libertj^,  to  spirit,  and  (in  some  as- 
pects) even  to  life — abstract  law,  which,  though  the  Mosaic 
ordinances  are  its  most  signal  and  complete  embodiment, 
nevertheless  is  not  exhausted  therein,  but  exerts  its  crushing 
power  over  the  conscience  in  diverse  manifestations.  The 
one — the  concrete  and  special — is  6  v6^iog\  the  other — the 
abstract  and  universal — is  v6\iog.  To  the  full  understanding 
of  such  passages  as  Rom.  ii.,  12  seq. ;  iii.,  19  seq. ;  iv.,  13  seq. ; 
vii.,  1  seq. ;  Gal.  iii.,  1.0  seq. ;  and,  indeed,  to  an  adequate  con- 
ception of  the  leading  idea  of  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  law  and 
grace,  this  distinction  is  indispensable. 

The  Gospels,  again^  will  furnish  illustrations  of  a  somewhat 
different  kind.  To  us  "  Christ"  has  become  a  proper  name, 
and,  as  such,  rejects  the  definite  article.  But  in  the  Gospel 
narratives,  if  we  except  the  headings  or  prefaces,  and  the 
after-comments  of  the  evangelists  themselves  (e.g..  Matt,  i.,  1 ; 


94      LIOHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

Mark  i.,  1 ;  John  i.,  17),  no  instance  of  this  usage  can  be  found. 
In  the  body  of  the  narratives  we  read  only  of  6  XpiaroQ,  the 
Christ,  the  Messiah,  whom  the  Jews  had  long  expected,  and 
who  might  or  might  not  be  identified  with  the  person  "Je- 
sus," according  to  the  spiritual  discernment  of  the  individual. 
XpitTTog  is  nowhere  connected  with  'hjaovg  in  the  Gospels  with 
the  exception  of  John  xvii,,  3,  where  it  occurs  in  a  prophetic 
declaration  of  our  Lord,  iVa  yivioaicioaiv  rov  fxoroi'  ak-qQivov  Qeov 
Kai  ov  cnrea-ElXac  'Iyjiovv  y>.pi(TT6v;  nor  is  it  used  without  the 
definite  article  in  more  than  four  passages,  Mark  ix.,  41,  tj/ 
oyoixaTL  VTL  Xpiarou  iari ;  Luke  ii.,  11,  o-wr//jo  og  iariv  Xpiaroe  Kv- 
piog;  xxiii.,  2,  Xiyovra  kavTov  XpiaTov;  John  ix.,  22,  ahrbv  o/jloXo- 
ynar}  Xpinroy,  where  the  very  exceptions  strengthen  the  rule. 
The  turning-point  is  the  Resurrection :  then,  and  not  till  then, 
we  hear  of  "Jesus  Christ"  from  the  lips  of  contemporary 
speakers  (Acts  ii.,  38  ;  iii.,  6),  and  from  that  time  forward 
Christ  begins  to  be  used  as  a  proper  name,  with  or  without 
the  article.  This  fact  points  to  a  rule  which  should  be  strict- 
ly observed  in  translation.  Li  the  Gospel  narratives  6  Xpia-vg 
should  always  be  rendered  "  the  Christ,"  and  never  "  Christ" 
simply.  In  some  places  our  translators  have  observed  this 
(e.g.,  Matt,  xxvi.,  63  ;  Mark  viii.,  29),  and  occasionally  they 
have  even  overdone  the  translation,  rendering  6  Xpicr-dg  by 
''that  Christ,"  John  i.,  25,  [vi.,  69],  or  ''the  very  Christ,"  John 
vii.,  26  ;  but  elsewhere,  under  exactly  the  same  conditions,  the 
article  is  omitted, e.g.,  Matt. xvi,,  16  ;  xxiv.,5;  Luke  xxiii., 35, 
39,  etc.  Yet  the  advantage  of  recognizing  its  presence  even 
in  extreme  cases,  where  at  first  sight  it  seems  intrusive,  would 
be  great.  In  such  an  instance  as  that  of  Herod's  inquiry, 
Matt,  ii.,4,  TTou  6  Xpiarog  yevvarai,  "Where  Christ  should  be 
born,"  probably  all  would  acknowledge  the  advantage  of  . 
substituting  "  the  Christ ;"  but  would  not  the  true  significance 
of  other  passages,  where  the  meaning  is  less  obvious,  be  re- 
stored by  the  change  ?  Thus,  in  Matt,  xi.,  2, 6  St  'Iwaj'jje  aicov- 
(Tag  tv  Tu  ht(Tfxu)Tr}pito  to.  epya  rov  XpifTTov,  the  evangelist's  mean- 
ing is  not  that  the  Baptist  heard  what  Jesus  was  doing,  but 


FAULTS  OF  0EAM2IAR.  95 

that  he  Avas  informed  of  one  performing  those  works  of  mercy 
and  power  which  the  evangelic  propliet  had  foretold  as  the 
special  function  of  the  Messiah.*  I  have  studiously  confined 
the  rigid  application  of  this  rule  to  the  historical  portions  of 
the  Gospels,  and  excepted  the  evangelists'  own  prefaces  and 
comments ;  but  even  in  these  latter  a  passage  is  occasionally 
brought  out  with  much  greater  force  by  understanding  tov 
XpKTTov  to  apply  to  the  office  rather  than  the  individual,  and 
translating  it "  the  Christ."  In  the  genealogy  of  St.Matthew, 
for  instance,  where  the  generations  are  divided  symmetrically 
into  three  sets  of  fourteen,  the  evangelist  seems  to  connect 
the  last  of  each  set  with  a  critical  epoch  in  the  history  of 
Israel ;  the  first  reaching  from  the  origin  of  the  race  to  the 
commencement  of  the  monarchy  (ver.  6,  "  David  the  Jciny'''') ; 
the  second  from  the  commencement  of  the  monarchy  to  the 
captivity  in  Babylon ;  the  third  and  last  from  the  captivity  to 
the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  the  Christ  (ewg  tov  Xpicrrov).  Con- 
nected with  the  title  of  the  Messiah  is  that  of  the  prophet, 
who  occupied  a  large  space  in  the  Messianic  horizon  of  the 
Jews — the  prophet  whom  Moses  had  foretold,  conceived  by 
some  to  be  the  Messiah  himself,  by  others  an  attendant  in  his 
train.  In  one  passage  only  (John  vii.,  40)  is  6  wpop'jrric,  so 
used,  rightly  given  in  our  version.  In  the  rest  (John  i.,21, 
25  ;  vi.,  14)  its  force  is  weakened  by  the  exaggerated  render- 
ing ^^that  prophet ;"  while  in  the  margin  of  i.,  21  (as  if  to  show 
how  little  they  understood  the  exigencies  of  the  article),  our 
translators  have  oifered  an  alternative,  "Art  thou  a  prophet?" 
As  relating  to  the  person  and  office  of  Christ  another  very 
important  illustration  presents  itself.  In  Col.  i.,  19,  St.  Paul 
declares  that  iv  ahrio  thloKriiTtv  TTciv  TO  7rXi'jpwjj.a  KaroiKtjarat,  which 
is  rendered  "  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  should  all 

*  I  find  that  the  view  which  is  here  maintained  of  the  use  of  Xpitrroc  and 
0  XpKTTog  is  different  alike  from  that  of  Middleton  (Greek  Article  on  Mark 
ix.,4l),  and  from  those  of  others  whom  he  criticises.  I  should  add  that  I 
wrote  all  these  paragraphs  relating  to  the  definite  article  without  consulting 
Middleton,  and  without  conscious  reminiscence  of  his  views  on  anj  of  the 
points  discussed. 

K 


96       LIOHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

fullness  dwell."  Here  an  important  theological  term  is  sup- 
pressed by  the  omission  of  the  article ;  for  ru  7rX?/pw/ia  is  "  the 
fullness,"  "  the  plentitude,"  pleroma  being  a  recognized  ex- 
pression to  denote  the  totality  of  the  divine  powers  and  at- 
tributes (John  i.,  16  ;  Eph.  i.,  23  ;  iii.,  19 ;  iv.,  13  ;  Col.  ii.,  9), 
and  one  which  afterwards  became  notorious  in  the  specula- 
tive systems  of  the  Gnostic  sects.  And  with  this  fact  before 
us,  it  is  a  question  whether  we  should  not  treat  to  TrXijpto^a  as 
a  quasi-personality,  and  translate,  "In  Him  all  the  Fullness 
was  pleased  to  dwell,"  thus  getting  rid  of  the  elliijsis  which 
our  ti-anslators  have  supplied  by  the  Father  in  italics ;  but,  at 
all  events,  the  article  must  be  preserved. 

Again,  more  remotely  connected  with  our  Lord's  office  is 
another  error  of  omission.  It  is  true  of  Christianity,  as  it  is 
true  of  no  other  religious  system,  that  the  religion  is  identified 
with,  is  absorbed  in,  the  Person  of  its  founder.  The  Gospel  is 
Christ,  and  Christ  only.  This  fact  finds  expression  in  many 
ways,  but  more  especially  in  the  application  of  the  same  lan- 
guage to  the  one  and  to  the  other.  In  most  cases  this  iden- 
tity of  terms  is  equally  apparent  in  the  English  and  in  the 
Greek ;  but  in  one  instance  it  is  obliterated  by  a  mistransla- 
tion of  the  definite  article.  Our  Lord,  in  St.  John's  Gospel, 
in  answer  to  the  disciple's  question,  "How  can  we  know  the 
xoayf''  answers, "I  am  the  tocuf'  (xiv.,5,  G).  Corresponding 
to  this,  we  ought  to  find  that  in  no  less  than  four  places  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  the  Gospel  is  called  "  the  way"  ab- 
solutely: ix.,  2,  "If  he  found  any  that  were  oi  the  way  {iav 
Tivag  Evpri  -^e  ocov  oyrae) ;"  xix.,  9,  "Divers  believed  not,  but 
spake  evil  of  the  icay ;''''  xix.,  23,  "There  arose  no  small  stir 
about  the  loayf  xxiv.,  22,  "Plaving  more  perfect  knowledge 
oithe  xoay ;''''  but  in  all  these  passages  the  fact  disappears  in 
the  English  Version,  which  varies  the  rendering  between  '•Hhis 
way"  and  "  that  way,"  but  never  once  translates  T^v  hlov^  '■'■the 
way." 

But  more  especially  are  these  omissions  of  the  article  fre- 
quent in  those  passages  which  relate  to  the  second  advent 


FAULTS  OF  GRAMMAR.  97 

and  its  accorajaanying  terrors  or  glories.  The  imagery  of 
this  great  crisis  was  definitely  conceived,  and,  as  such,  the 
apostles  refer  to  it.  In  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians 
more  especially,  St.  Paul  mentions  having  repeatedly  dwelt 
on  these  topics  to  his  converts:  "Remember  ye  not  that 
when  I  was  yet  with  you  I  told  you  these  things  ?"  2  Thess. 
ii.,  5.  Accordingly,  he  appeals  to  incidents  connected  with 
the  second  advent  as  known  facts:  khv  fx))  'iXdr)  7)  a-Koaraoia 
■KpCJTOV  Kal  ciTTOKaXv^dfj  6  avSptairoQ  TrJQ  afxapTiaQ  [v.  1.  di'Oju/ac], 
"  Except  the  falling  away  come  first  and  the  man  of  sin  be  re- 
vealed," where  our  version  makes  the  apostle  say  "  a  falling 
away,"  '■''that  man  of  sin,"  just  as  a  little  lower  down  it  trans- 
lates 6  ciro/ioc^^Aa^  wicked"  instead  of  "^Ae  lawless  one."  Sim- 
ilarly in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (xi.,  10)  it  is  said  of 
Abraham  in  the  original  that  "He  looked  for  the  city  which 
hath  the  foundations  (t'sfSfj^tro  rijv  rovg  de/jieXiovg  i-)(ovaav  tto- 
Xii^)."  A  definite  image  here  rises  before  the  sacred  writer's 
mind  of  the  new  Jerusalem  such  as  it  is  described  in  the 
Apocalypse,  "  The  wall  of  the  city  had  twelve  foundations, 
and  in  them  the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb 
(xxi.,14);"  "The  foundations  of  the  wall  of  the  city  were 
garnished  with  all  manner  of  precious  stones,  etc."  (xxi.,19 
seq.).*  But  in  our  version  the  words  are  robbed  of  their 
meaning,  and  Abraham  is  made  to  look  for  "  a  city  which 
hath  foundations" — a  senseless  expression,  for  no  city  is  with- 
out them.  Again,  in  the  Apocalypse,  the  definite  article  is 
more  than  once  disregarded  under  similar  circumstances. 
Take,  for  instance,  vii.,  12, 14,  "What  are  these  which  are  ar- 
rayed in  white  robes  {tuq  (r-oXag  rag  Xevmg)  ?"  with  the  reply, 
"These  are  they  which  came  out  of  great  tribulation  {k  rfjg 
dXi\pe(i)g  TTjg  /leyc'tXec) ;"  xvii.,  1, "  That  sitteth  on  many  icateri''. 
{enl  TU)v  vlaT(>)v  -u>v  ttoXXHv,  for  this  was  the  reading  in  their 
text).  And  another  instance,  not  very  dissimilar,  occurs  in 
the  Gospels.  The  same  expression  is  used  six  times  in  St. 
Matthew  (viii.,  12;  xiii.,42,50;  xxii.,13;  xxiv.,51;  xxv.,30), 
*  See  Abp.  Trench's  Authorized  Version,  p.  70,  71. 


98      LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FBE8H  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

and  once  in  St. Luke  (xiii.,  28),  to  describe  the  despair  and 
misery  of  the  condemned ;  iKei  tarai  6  KXavdfxoQ  koI  6  fipvyfios 
Tu)v  6l6pTU)v^  where  the  rendering  should  be  corrected  into 
"  There  shall  be  the  wailing  and  the  gnashing  of  teeth." 

The  last  instance  which  I  shall  take  connected  with  this 
group  of  facts  and  ideas  relating  to  the  end  of  the  world  is 
more  subtle,  but  not,  on  that  account,  less  important.  I  refer 
to  the  peculiar  sense  of  //  d/oyj/,  as  occurring  in  a  passage  which 
has  been  variously  explained,  but  which  seems  to  admit  only 
of  one  probable  interpretation,  Rom.  xii.,  19,  /x>)  lavTovg  Uh- 
KOuiTEC,  ayaTTTjToi,  dXXa  core  TOiroy  t^  f^pyfl'  y^ypaTrrai  yap  'E/xoi  ic- 
^iKrjcnQ,  iyu)  ayraTrodMcru),  \iyei  KvpiO£.  With  this  compare  Rom. 
v.,  9,  (Tudetrufieda  ci  avrou  inro  rj/e  Spyrjg,  which  is  rendered  "We 
shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through  him,"  and  more  especial- 
ly 1  Thess.  ii.,  16,  efOaaey  {t(pdat:£y)  ce  in  avrovg  ij  opyi)  etc  reXog, 
where  the  definite  article  is  correctly  reproduced  in  our  ver- 
sion, "  For  the  wrath  is  come  upon  them  to  the  uttermost." 
From  these  passages  it  appears  that  ?'/  opyi),  "ZAe  wrath,"  used 
absolutely,  signifies  the  divine  retribution  ;  and  the  force  of 
St. Paul's  injunction  in  Rom.  xii.,  19,  ^dre  rmov  r^  6py^  is  this: 
"Do  not  avenge  yourselves:  do  not  anticij^ate  the  divine 
retribution ;  do  not  thrust  yourselves  into  God's  place,  but 
leave  room  for  his  judgments" — a  sense  which  the  English 
rendering  "  rather  give  place  unto  wrath"  does  not  suggest, 
and  pi'obably  was  not  intended  to  represent.  In  the  same 
way,  TO  deXrjfia  is  the  divine  will  (Rom.  ii.,  18,  yivwaKeig  to  OiXri- 
yua),*  and  TO  bfofia  the  divine  name  (Phil,  ii.,  9,  to  orofia  to  vTrsp 

*  This  word  GtKrjixa  came  to  be  so  appropriated  to  the  divine  will  that  it  is 
sometimes  used  in  this  sense  even  without  the  definite  article;  e.  g.,Ignat., 
Rom.,  l,idvirep  GeXrjfia  y  rov  KaTaS.iwQ^vai  fxe  (the  correct  text) ;  Ephes.,  20, 
idv  [it  KUTa^may  'lt](jovg  XpicTog  iv  Ty  Trpoatvxy  vp-^v  Kai  QeXtjpa  ?j;  Smyrn.,- 
1,  vlbv  Qiov  Kara  9i\r]fia  Kai  Ivvapiv  [efoD]  (where  Qeov  is  doubtful). 

These  passages  point  to  the  trae  interpretation  of  1  Cor.  xvi.,  12,  oitk  >/i/ 
9i\tpa  'iva  vvv  iXOy,  tXevcjerai  di  orav  evKaipqay,  which  is  (I  believe)  univers- 
ally intei"preted  as  in  our  English  Version,  "his  will  was  not  to  come,  "but 
which  ought  to  be  explained,  "It  was  not  God's  will  that  he  should  come." 

They  also  indicate,  as  I  believe,  the  true  reading  in  Rom.  xv.,  32,  tVa  iv 
^ap^  tX6(o  irpog  vpdg  did  QiXyjpaToc, y,here  various  additions  appear  in  the 


FAULTS  OF  GRAMMAR.  99 

trav  uvojia).  lu  the  last  passage,  however,  it  is  unfair  to  charge 
our  translators  with  an  inaccurate  rendering,  "gave  him  a 
name,"  for  their  incorrect  text  omitted  the  article ;  but  ro 
oi'oyua  is  the  true  reading,  and  it  is  suj^erfluous  to  remark  how 
much  is  gained  thereby. 

In  other  passages,  where  no  doctrinal  considerations  are 
involved,  a  histoi'ical  incident  is  misrepresented  or  the  mean- 
ing of  a  passage  is  perverted  by  the  neglect  or  the  mistrans- 
lation of  the  article.  Thus,  in  two  several  passages,  St.  Paul's 
euphemism  of  ro  ■n-pajf.ia,  when  speaking  of  sins  of  the  flesh, 
is  effaced,  and  he  is  made  to  say  something  else :  in  1  Thess. 
iv.,  6, "  That  no  man  go  beyond  and  defraud  his  brother  in 
(my  matter"  {kv  t-w  Trpay/xan),  where  the  sin  of  dishonest  gain 
is  substituted  for  the  sin  of  unbridled  sensuality  by  the  mis- 
translation; and  in  2  Cor.  vii.,  11,  "Ye  have  approved  your- 
selves to  be  clear  in  this  matter  {iv  tm  wpuyiJ.aTi),''''  where, 
though  the  perversion  is  much  less  considerable,  a  slightly 
different  turn  is  given  to  the  apostle's  meaning  by  substitut- 
ing "  this"  for  "  the."  Again,  in  1  Cor.  v.,  9,  where  St. Paul  is 
made  to  say, "  I  wrote  to  you  in  an  epistle"  (instead  of  "  mt/ 
epistle"  or  "  letter"),  the  mistranslation  of  h  r^  ETrtoroXj}  has 
an  important  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of  his  allusion. 
Again,  in  2  Cor.  xii.,  18,  "I  desired  Titus,  and  with  him  I  sent 
a  brother  (rov  a^eX^dr),"  the  error  adds  to  the  difficulty  in 
discerning  the  movements  of  St.  Paul's  delegates  previous  to 
the  writing  of  the  letter.  And  in  such  renderings  as  John 
iii.,  10,  (TV  ei  6  Si^acTKoXog  rov  'Japal]\;  "Art  thou  a  master  of 
Israel?"  and  Rev. iii.,  17,^1)  el  6  raXatVwpoe  koI  [0]  iXeenoc,  "Thou 
art  wretched  and  miserable,"  though  there  is  no  actual  mis- 
leading, the  passages  lose  half  their  force  by  the  omission. 

In  another  class  of  passages  some  fact  of  geography  or 
archaeology  lurks  under  the  definite  article,  such  as  could 
proceed  only  from  the  pen  of  an  eye-witness,  or  at  least  of 
one  intimately  acquainted  with  the  circumstances.     In  al- 

MSS. :  &iov  in  AC,  Kvpiov  'Iijffov  in  'B,'It]aov  Xpiarov  in  X,  Xpiffroii  'hjaov  in 
DFG,  but  where  9e\r]fia  appears  to  be  used  absolutely. 


100    LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

most  every  instance  of  this  kind  the  article  is  neglected  in 
our  version,  though  it  is  obviously  important  at  a  time  when 
the  evidences  of  Christianity  are  so  narrowly  scanned  that 
these  more  minute  traits  of  special  knowledge  should  be  kept 
in  mind.  Thus,  for  instance,  in  John  xii.,  13,  "They  took 
branches  of  palm-trees,"  the  original  has  to.  (3aia  tCov  ^oivLkwv^ 
"  the  branches  of  the  palm-trees" — the  trees  m- ith  which  the 
evangelist  himself  was  so  familiar,  which  clothed  the  eastern 
slopes  of  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  gave  its  name  to  the  vil- 
lage of  Bethany,  "  the  house  of  dates."  Thus,  again,  in  the 
Acts  (ix.,  35),  the  words  translated  "Lydda  and  Saron"  are 
Avoca  Kai  tov  Sapwrn,  "  Lydda  and  the  Sharon,"*  the  former 
being  the  town,  the  latter  the  district  in  the  neighborhood, 
and  therefore  having  the  definite  article  in  this,  the  only  pas- 
sage in  which  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  as  it  always 
has  in  the  Old  Testament,  Hash-sharon,  "^Ae  Sharon,"  the 
woody  plain,  just  as  we  talk  of  "  the  weald,"  "  the  downs," 
etc.f  Again,  there  is  mention  of  "  the  pinnacle  {to  ■KTEpvyiov) 
of  the  Temple"  in  the  record  of  the  temptation  (Matt,  iv.,  5 ; 
Luke  iv.,  9) — the  same  expression  likewise  being  used  by  the 
Jewish  Christian  historian  Hegesippus  in  the  second  century, 
Avben  describing  the  martyrdom  of  James,  the  Lord's  brother, 
who  is  thrown  down  from  "Me  Tr-tjouytov ;"J  so  that  (whatev- 
er may  be  the  exact  meaning  of  the  word  translated  "  pinna- 
cle") some  one  definite  place  is  meant,  and  the  impression 
conveyed  to  the  English  reader  by  "  a  pinnacle"  is  radically 

*  The  reading  aaapiava  or  itaaapm'a,  which  is  found  in  some  few  second- 
rate  authorities,  is  a  reproduction  of  the  Hebrew,  founded  perhaps  on  the 
note  of  Origen  (?),  TivtQ  Sk  ciaoapwva  <pa(siv,  ovxi  aapwva,  oirtp  KpuTTov  (see 
Tisch.,  Nov.  Test.  Grcec,  ed.  8,  ii.,  p.  80).  In  direct  contrast  to  this  uncon- 
scious reduplication  of  the  article  stands  the  reading  of  X  (corrected, however, 
by  a  later  hand),  which  omits  the  tov,  from  not  understanding  the  presence 
of  the  article. 

t  The  illustration  is  Mr.  Grove's,  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bihle,  s.  v. 
Saron. 

X  In  Euseb.,H^£.,ii.,23,  ernj^i  ovv  itti  to  vrepvyiov  toU  iipov  .  .  .  iamjaav 
ovv  01  Trpoiiptjpivot  ypappuTitg  Kai  ^apKraXoi  tov  'laKdjjSov  'tTzl  to  Trnpvyiov 
TOV  vaov. 


FAULTS  OF  GEAMMAR.  101 

wrong.  Again,  in  the  history  of  the  cleansing  of  the  Tem- 
ple, the  reference  to  the  seats  of  them  that  sold  "  the  doves" 
{rhq  TTEpiffTepao)  in  two  eyangelists  (Matt,  xxi.,12;  Mark  xi., 
15)  indicates  the  pen  of  a  narrator  who  was  accustomed  to 
the  sio-ht  of  the  doves  which  might  be  purchased  within  the 
sacred  precincts  by  worshipers  intending  to  offer  the  purifi- 
catory offerings  enjoined  by  the  Mosaic  law  (Luke  ii.,  24).  In 
like  manner,  ''the  bushel"  and  ''the  candlestick"  in  the  Ser- 
mon on  the  Mount  (Matt,  v.,  15  ;  comp.  Mark  iv.,  21 ;  Luke 
xi.,  33)  point  to  the  simple  and  indispensable  furniture  in  ev- 
ery homely  Jewish  household.  And  elsewhere  casual  allu- 
sions to  "the  cross-way"  (Mark  xl,4),"the  steep"  (Mark  v., 
13,  "a  steep  place,"  A.V),  "the  synagogue"  or  "our  syna- 
gogue" (Luke  vii.,  5,  "He  hath  built  us  a  synagogue,"  A.V.*), 
and  the  like — which  are  not  unfrequent — all  have  their  value, 
and  ought  not  to  be  obscured. 

But  there  are  two  remarkable  instances  of  the  persistent 
13resence  of  the  definite  article — both  connected  with  the  Lake 
of  Galilee — which  deserve  special  attention,  but  which,  nev- 
ertheless, do  not  appear  at  all  to  the  English  reader. 

Most  students  of  the  New  Testament  have  had  their  atten- 
tion called  to  the  fact  that  our  Lord,  before  delivering  the 
discourse  which  we  call "  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,"  is  re- 
corded to  have  gone  up,  not  "  into  a  mountain,"  but "  into  the 
mountain"  (ro  opog),  Matt,  v.,  1  ;f  and  they  have  been  taught 

*  In  Acts  xvii.,1,  also,  where  the  A.V.  has  "  Thessalonica,  where  was  a 
synagogue  of  the  Jews,"  our  translators  certainly  read  (mov  yv  r)  (rwaywyrj, 
though  the  article  must  be  omitted  in  the  Greek,  if  a  strong  combination  of 
the  oldest  authorities  is  to  have  weight. 

t  Dean  Stanley  (Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  3C1),  supporting  the  traditional 
site  of  the  "Mount  of  Beatitudes,"  writes,  "  None  of  the  other  mountains  in 
the  neighborhood  could  answer  equally  well  to  this  description,  inasmuch  as 
the}'  are  merged  into  the  uniform  barrier  of  hills  round  the  lake,  whereas  this 
stands  separate — '  the  mountain,'  which  alone  could  lay  claim  to  a  distinct 
name,  with  the  one  exception  of  Tabor,  which  is  too  distant  to  answer  the  re- 
quirement." If  the  view  which  I  have  taken  in  the  text  be  correct,  this  "uni- 
form barrier  of  hills"  would  itself  be  ro  opog :  at  all  events,  the  fact  that  to 
opoQ  is  the  common  expression  in  the  evangelists  shows  that  the  definite  ar- 
ticle does  not  distinguish  the  locaUty  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  from  those 


102    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

to  observe  also  that  St.Luke  (vi.,  I7),in  describing  the  locali- 
ty -where  a  discourse  very  similar  to  St. Matthew's  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  is  held,  says,  "  He  came  down  with  them  and 
stood,"  not  (as  our  English  Version  makes  him  say)  "  in  the 
plain''''  (as  ifev  t-w  Treot'w),  but  "cm  a  level  plac^''  {t-Ki  tottov  tte- 
ctj'oD),  where  the  very  expression  suggests  that  the  spot  was 
situated  in  the  midst  of  a  hilly  country.  Thus,  by  respecting 
the  presence  of  the  article  in  the  one  evangelist  and  its  ab- 
sence in  the  other,  the  two  accounts  are  so  far  brought  into 
accordance  that  the  description  of  the  localities,  at  all  events, 
offers  no  impediment  to  our  identifying  the  discourses. 

But  it  is  important  to  observe  in  addition  that  whenever 
the  evangelists  speak  of  incidents  occurring  above  the  shores 
of  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  they  invariahly  use  to  opoQ*  and  never 
opoQ  or  TCI  6pv,  either  of  which,  at  first  sight,  would  have  seemed 
more  natural.  The  probable  explanation  of  this  fact  is,  that 
TO  epos  stands  for  the  mountain  district — the  hills  as  opposed 
to  the  level  shores — more  especially  as  the  corresponding  He- 
brew "inn  is  frequently  so  used,  and  in  such  cases  is  trans- 
lated TO  opoQ  in  the  LXX. :  e.  g., "  the  mountain  of  Judah," 
"the  mountain  of  Ephraim,"  Josh,  xvii.,  16  ;  .xix.,  50;  xx.,  7, 
etc.f  But,  whatever  may  be  the  explanation,  the  article  ought 
to  be  retained  throughout. 

Only  less  persistentj  is  the  presence  of  the  article  in  "  the 

of  several  other  incidents  in  this  neighborhood,  though  possibly  the  independ- 
ent reasons  in  favor  of  the  traditional  site  may  be  sufficient  without  this  aid. 

*  The  only  exceptions,  I  believe,  to  the  insertion  of  the  definite  article  are 
in  the  cases  of  the  temptation  (Matt,  iv.,  8  [Luke  iv.,  5])  and  of  the  transfig- 
uration (Matt,  xvii.,  1  ;  Mark  ix.,  2),  in  all  which  passages  the  expression  is 
tig  upoQ  v-^t]\uv  [Xi'av]. 

t  It  is  no  objection  to  this  interpretation  that  St.Luke  twice  uses  the  more 
classical  expression  y  optivt]  in  speaking  of  the  hill-country  of  Judaea :  i.,  39, 
65.  Wherever  he  treads  on  the  same  ground  with  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark, 
he  has  to  opoQ.  The  portion  of  his  narrative  in  which  »)  optiv^  occurs  is  de- 
rived from  some  wholly  independent  source. 

X  The  common  text,  however,  inserts  the  article  in  a  few  passages  where  it 
is  absent  from  one  or  more  of  the  best  MSS.  (e.  g.,  Matt,  viii.,  23  ;  ix.,  1 ; 
xiii.,  2  ;  xiv.,  22  ;  Mark  iv.,  1 ;  vi.,  30,  45).  In  Matt,  xiv.,  13,  iv  irXoiip  is 
read  by  all  the  ancient  authorities  which  have  the  words  at  all.     In  cases 


FAULTS  OF  QRAMMAM,  103 

ship"  {to  irXoiov)  in  connection  Avith  the  navigation  of  the  Sea 
of  Galilee.  Whatever  may  be  the  significance  of  this  fact — 
whether  it  simply  bears  testimony  to  the  vividness  with 
which  each  scene  in  succession  presented  itself  to  the  first 
narrator  or  narrators,  or  whether  some  one  well-known  boat 
was  intended  (as  the  narrative  of  John  vi,,  22  seq.  might  sug- 
gest)— the  article  ought  to  have  been  preserved  in  the  En- 
glish Version  ;  whereas  in  this  case,  as  in  the  last,  the  trans- 
lators have  been  guided,  not  by  grammar,  but  by  "  common 
sense,"  for  the  most  part  translating  to  opoc,  to  tXoIoi',  on  each 
occasion  where  they  appear  first  in  connection  with  a  fresh 
incident  by  "  a  mountain,"  "  a  ship,"  and  afterwards  by  "  the 
mountain,"  "  the  ship." 

Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  where  this  phenomenon  appears  in 
the  original  Greek,  that  is,  where  an  object  is  indefinite  when 
first  introduced  and  becomes  definite  after  its  first  mention, 
our  translators  have  frequently  disregarded  this  "  common- 
sense"  rule,  and  departed  from  the  Greek.  Thus,  in  the  ac- 
count of  St.Peter's  three  denials  in  Mark  xiv.,  69,  we  are  told 
that  "  one  of  the  maid-servants  {fxla  tUv  iraihiaiciot')  of  the  high- 
priest"  questioned  him  and  elicited  his  first  denial;  then,  // 
TraiciaKT}  icovaa  avTov  iraXiv  i'jp^aTo  Xtyeiv,"  jT/ie  maid-servant,  see- 
ing him  again,  began  to  say ;"  but  our  translators  in  the  sec- 
ond passage  render  it  "  a  maid-servant,"  thus  making  two 
distinct  persons.  The  object  was  doubtless  to  bring  the  nar- 
rative into  strict  conformity  with  Matt,  xxvi.,69,  71  (jxiaTrai- 
cifftcri  .  .  .  aWt]) ;  but,  though  there  might  seem  to  be  an  im- 
mediate gain  here,  this  disregard  of  grammar  is  really  a  liin- 
derance  to  any  satisfactory  solution,  where  an  exact  agree- 
ment in  details  is  unimportant,  and  where  strict  harmony,  if 
attainable,  must  depend  on  the  tumultuous  character  of  the 
scene,  in  which  more  than  one  interrogator  w^ould  speak  at 
the  same  time.*    Our  translators,  however,  were  at  fault,  not 

where  the  MSS.  differ  it  is  not  easy  to  see  whether  or  not  the  omission  of  the 
article  was  a  scribe's  correction.     Generally  it  may  be  said  that  the  article 
with  nXoTov  is  more  persistent  in  the  other  evangelists  than  in  St.  Matthew. 
*  See  the  solution  in  Westcott's  Introduction  to  the  Gospels,  p.  280. 


104    LIQHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REYISIOX  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

through  any  want  of  honesty,  but  from  their  imperfect  knowl- 
edge of  grammar,  for  they  repeatedly  err  in  the  same  way 
where  no  purpose  is  served;  e.g., Mark  ii.,15,16," Many  pub- 
licans and  sinners  (ttoXXoi  rtKwyaL  kol  ajjiap-uXoi)  sat  also  to- 
gether with  Jesus  .  .  .  and  when  the  scribes  and  Pharisees 
saw  him  eat  with  publicans  and  sinners  (^tra  rwv  reXwviov  kuI 
afiapT(i)\wy)  .  .  .  How  is  it  that  he  eateth  and  drinketh  with 
publicans  and  sinners  {fiera  rwy  rtkuyvCJv  koX  a^aprwXCjv)  ?"  .  .  . 
1  John  v.,  6,  "This  is  he  that  came  by  water  and  blood  (2i'  ila- 
TOQ  Koi  cu^aToo),  even  Jesus  Christ ;  not  by  water  [Iv  t-w  vcart) 
only,  but  by  water  (Iv  rw  vcan)  and  blood  (-w  a'tfiari) ;"  Rev. 
xi.,  9, 11, "Shall  see  their  dead  bodies  three  days  and  a  half 
(j/juEjoae  Tpue  KOI  ijfjLKTv)  .  .  .  Aud  after  three  days  and  a  half 
(jiera  rae  rpfig  iip.ipaQ  Ka\  ijniav),  etc."  Omissions  of  this  class 
are  very  numerous. 

The  error  of  inserting  the  article  where  it  is  absent  is  less 
frequent  than  that  of  omitting  it  where  it  is  present,  but  not 
less  injurious  to  the  sense.  Thus,  in  1  Tim.  iii.,11,  yvyalKag 
waavTwg  aefxyag  would  hardly  have  been  rendered  "  even  so 
must  their  t^eues  be  grave"  if  the  theory  of  the  definite  article 
had  been  understood ;  for  our  translators  would  have  seen 
that  the  reference  is  to  ywalicaQ  diaKovovc,  "women-deacons"  or 
"  deaconesses,"  and  not  to  the  wives  of  the  deacons.*  Again, 
in  John  iv.,  27,  lQav}ia^ov  on  fiera  yvyaiKog  eXaXei,  the  English 
Version, "  They  marveled  that  he  talked  with  the  woman," 
implies  that  the  disciples  knew  her  shameful  history — a  high- 
ly improbable  supposition,  since  she  is  obviously  a  stranger 
whose  character  our  Lord  reads  through  his  divine  intuition 
alone ;  whereas  the  true  rendering, "  He  talked  Avith  a  wom- 

*  The  office  of  deaconess  is  mentioned  only  in  one  other  passage  in  the  New 
Testament  (Rom.  xvi.,  1),  and  there  also  it  is  obliterated  in  the  English  Ver- 
sion by  the  substitution  of  the  vague  expression  ' '  which  is  a  servant"  for  the 
more  definite  ovaav  Siukovov.  If  the  testimony  bofne  in  these  two  passages 
to  a  ministiy  of  women  in  the  apostolic  times  had  not  been  thus  blotted  out 
of  our  English  Bibles,  attention  would  probably  have  been  directed  to  the  sub- 
ject at  an  earlier  date,  and  our  English  Church  would  not  have  remained  so 
long  maimed  in  one  of  her  hands. 


FAULTS  OF  GRAMMAR.  105 

an,"  which  indeed  alone- explains  the  emphatic  position  of  yn- 
vatKOQ^  points  to  their  surprise  that  he  should  break  through 
the  conventional  restraints  imposed  by  rabbinical  authority 
and  be  seen  speaking  to  one  of  the  other  sex  in  public* 
Again,  in  Luke  vi.,  16,  vq  \jcai\  iyiviTo  TrpoloT-qg  ought  not  to  be 
translated  "  which  also  was  the  traitor,"  because  the  subse- 
quent history  of  Judas  is  not  assumed  to  be  known  to  St. 
Luke's  readers,  but "  who  also  became  a  traitor."  Again,  it  is 
important  for  geographical  reasons  that  in  Acts  viii,,  5,  Philip 
should  not  be  represented  as  going  down  "  to  the  city  of  Sa- 
maria" (etc  T^okiv  rfiQ  Lafxapeiag),  if  the  reading  which  our  trans- 
lators had  before  them  be  correct,f  because  the  rendering  may 
lead  to  a  wu'ong  identification  of  the  place.  And,  lastly,  Kara 
iopT)]t',  which  means  simply  "  at  festival-time,"  should  not  be 
translated  "at  the  feast"  (Luke  xxiii.,  17),  still  less  "  at  that 
feast"  (Matt,  xxvii.,  15  ;  Mark  xv.,  6),  because  these  render- 
ings seem  to  limit  the  custom  to  the  feast  of  the  Passover — 
a  limitation  which  is  not  implied  in  the  original  expression, 
and  certainly  is  not  required  by  the  parallel  passage  in  St. 
John  (xviii.,  39).  Happily,  in  another  passage  (John  v.,  1, 
fxera  tuvtu  7iv  toprt)  twv  'lovcaiwy),  which  is  imjDortant  in  its  beai'- 
ing  on  the  chronology  of  our  Lord's  life,  our  translators  have 
respected  the  omission  of  the  article  befoi*e  eopn) ;  but  that 
their  accuracy  in  this  instance  wlis  purely  accidental  appears 
from  the  fact  that  a  chapter  later  (vi.,  4),  ro  Trao-xa  //  top-))  tCjv 
'lovlaiuv  is  rendered  "  the  Passover,  a  feast  of  the  Jews." 

But  if,  after  the  examples  already  given,  any  doubt  could 
still  remain  that  the  theory  of  the  definite  article  was  wholly 
unknown  to  our  translators,  the  following  passages,  in  which 
almost  every  conceivable  rule  is  broken,  must  be  regarded  as 
conclusive :  Matt,  iii.,  4,  uvtoq  Ie  6  'Iioavrjc  ^x^^  ''^  ev^vfia,  "And 
the  same  John  had  his  raiment"  (where  the  true  rendering, 
"  But  John  himself,"  involves  an  antithesis  of  the  prophetic 

*  A  rabbinical  precept  was,  "  Let  no  one  talk  with  a  woman  in  the  street, 
no,  not  with  his  own  wife :"  see  Lightfoot  s  Works,  ii.,  p.  o43. 
t  tig  Tt}v  TToXiv,  however,  ought  almost  certainly  to  be  read. 


106    LIOHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N  TEST. 

announcement  and  the  actual  appearance  of  the  Baptist) ; 
John  iv.,  37,  kv  tovtm  6  Xoyog  Lcttiv  6  aXijdii'OG,  "Herein  is  that 
saying  true ;"  ib.,  v.,  44,  Tr)v  ^6^ap  rw  iraph  rov  fiovov  GeoD,  "  The 
honor  that  cometh  from  God  only  f  Acts  xi.,  17,  ti)v  Ur^v  cw 
peav  edojKEV  avroig  6  QeoQ  wg  Kai  ii/d'n'  irLCTTEVGacTLV  Ini  ruv  Kvpior^ 
"  God  gave  them  the  like  gift  as  he  did  unto  us  u-ho  believed 
on  the  Lord;"  1  Cor.  viii.,  10,11,  »/  avvtilr]aiQ  alrov  aaderovg  6V- 
TOQ  ....  TVTTTOVTEQ  avTibv  Tffv  (Tvv£lcr](ny  acrQevovam',  "  The  con- 
science of  him  that  is  weak  .  .  .  wound  their  tceak  conscience;" 
2  Cor.  viii.,  19,  irpoc  Tt)v  av-ov  rov  Kvplov  ^o^ar,  "To  the  glory 
of  the  same  Lord  ;"  1  Tim.  vi.,  2,  Triarol  t\(nv  kcu  ayanrjTol  01  r/;c 
evepyeaiae  avTi\an(iav6nEvoi,  "  They  are  faithful  and  beloved, 
partakers  of  the  benefit;"  ib.,  vi.,  5,  vofjiiZovTwv  Tropiir/xov  elyai 
Ti]v  evfff'/jeta;/,  "  Supposing  that  gain  is  godliness;"  2  Tim.  ii., 
19,6  iiivToi  aTEptoQ  dtfiiXioQ  rov  Qsov  fVrjjcej',  "  Nevertheless,  the 
foundation  of  God  standeth  sure;"  Heh.  yI,  8,k<l)ipov<Ta  ^e 
uKavdaQ  Kai  rpijSoXove  acoKi/jioc,  "  But  that  tchich  beareth  thorns 
and  briers  is  rejected ;"  ib..,  vi.,  16,7ra(rjjc  auroTc  avTiKoyiaq  irkpaQ 
tig  (3e(3aiw<Tiv  6  opi^oQ,  ^^An  oath  for  confirmation  is  to  them  an 
end  of  all  strife;"  ih.,\x.,\,T6  re  ayiov  co(r^iKoj',"And  a  worldly 
sanctuary;"  ib..,  X.,1,  rate  avralg  Qvtj'iaig  ag  TTjOOo-^tpovo-iJ', "  With 
those  sacrifices  which  they  oifered;"  Rev.  xix.,9,  ou-oi  ol  Xoyoi 
a.XT]divo[  eliTi  rov  Qeov, "  These  are  the  true  sayings  of  God." 

There  is,  however,  one  passage  in  which  this  fault  is  com- 
mitted, and  on  which  it  may  be  worth  while  to  dwell  at 
greater  length,  because  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been  prop- 
erly understood.  In  John  v.,  35,  the  words  iKtlvog  7]v  6  Xv^t'og 
o  Kaio^erog  i;al  ^atVwr,  in  which  our  Lord  describes  the  Bap- 
tist, are  translated  in  our  version,  "  He  was  a  burning  and  a 
shining  light."  Thus  rendered,  the  expression  appears  as  in- 
tended simply  to  glorify  John.  But  this  is  not  the  sense 
which  the  context  requires,  and  it  is  only  attained  by  a  fla- 
grant disregard  of  the  articles.  Commentators  have  correctly 
pointed  out  that  John  is  here  called  6  Xvx^og,  "  the  lamp ;"  he 
was  not  ro  (Pfg,  "the  light"  (i.,  8);*  for  Christ  himself,  and 

*  Here  again  (i. ,  8)  much  is  lost  in  the  English  Version  by  rendering  ovk 
yv  iKuvog  ro  fo>g, "  He  was  not  that  light." 


FA  TIL  TS  OF  ORAMMAE.  107 

Christ  only,  is  '■'■the  light"  (i.,  9;  iii.,  19;  ix.,  5,  etc.).  Thus 
the  rendering  of  6  Xv^yoQ  is  vitally  wrong,  as  probably  few 
would  deny.  But  it  has  not  been  perceived  how  much  the 
contrast  between  the  Baptist  and  the  Savior  is  strengthened 
by  a  proper  appreciation  of  the  remaining  words  6  Kaiofxevog 
Kal  <paivu)v.  The  word  KaUiv  is  "  to  burn,  to  kindle,"  as  in  Matt, 
v.,  15,  ovIe  Kaiovtjiv  \v)(voi',  "Neither  do  men  light  a  candle:" 
so,  too,  Luke  xii.,  35,  ol  Xix^ot  Kaiofxevot,  Rev.  iv.,  5  ;  viii.,  10. 
Thus  it  implies  that  the  light  is  not  inherent, but  borrowed; 
and  the  force  of  the  expression  will  be,  "  He  is  the  lamp  that 
is  kindled,  and  so  shineth."  Christ  himself  is  the  centre  and 
source  of  light;  the  Baptist  has  no  light  of  his  own,  but  draws 
all  his  illumination  from  this  greater  one.  He  is  only  as  the 
light  of  the  candle,  for  whose  rays,  indeed,  men  are  grateful, 
but  which  is  pale,  flickering,  transitory,  compared  with  the 
glories  of  the  eternal  flame  from  which  itself  is  kindled. 

3.  After  the  tenses  and  the  definite  article,  the  2y'>'epositions 
deserve  to  be  considered ;  for  here,  also,  there  is  much  room 
for  improvement. 

Of  these,  hib.  holds  the  first  place  in  importance ;  yet,  in 
dealing  with  this  preposition,  we  are  met  with  a  difliculty. 
The  misunderstandings  which  arise  in  the  mind  of  an  Enfjlish 
reader  are  due  in  most  passages  rather  to  the  archaisms  than 
to  the  errors  of  our  translators ;  and  archaisms  are  very  in- 
tractable. Where,  in  common  language,  we  now  say  "  by" 
and  "through"  {i.  e.,"by  means  of")  respectively,  our  trans- 
lators, following  the  diction  of  their  age,  generally  use  "  of" 
and  "  by"  respectively — "  of"  denoting  the  agent  (wtto),  and 
"by"  the  instrument  or  means  {hia).  This,  however,  is  not 
universally  the  case;  but  utto  is  sometimes  translated  "by" 
(e.g.,  Luke  ii.,  18),  and  ^la  sometimes  "through"  (e.g.,  John 
i.,  7).  Such  exceptions  seem  to  show  that  the  language  was 
already  in  a  state  of  transition ;  and  this  supposition  is  con- 
firmed by  observing  that  in  the  first  passage  Tyndale  and  the 
earlier  versions  render  -wv  XaXrjdiyTwy  avTolQ  hiro  tCjv  TToifxivwv^ 


108    LIGHTFOOT  OK  A  FBESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

"those  things  which  were  told  them  of  the.  shepherds" — a  ren- 
dering still  retained  even  in  the  Bishops'  and  Geneva  Bibles, 
and  first  altered  apparently  by  King  James's  revisers. 

From  these  archaisms  great  ambiguity  arises.  When  we 
hear  "it  was  said  o/'him,"  we  understand  at  once  ^^ about  or 
concerning  him,"  but  this  is  not  the  meaning  which  this  prep- 
osition bears  in  our  New  Testament.  And  again,  when  we 
read  "  it  was  sent  by  me,"  we  understand  "  I  sent  it,"  but 
neither  again  is  this  the  meaning  intended.  In  the  modern 
language  "by"  represents  the  sender  (utto),  whereas  in  the  old 
it  denotes  the  bearer  i^ia)  of  the  letter  or  parcel.  We  do  not 
venture  to  use  "Jy,"  meaning  the  intermediate  agency  or  in- 
strument, except  in  cases  where  the  form  or  the  matter  of  the 
sentence  shows  distinctly  that  the  primary  agent  is  not  in- 
tended, so  that  no  confusion  is  possible,  as  "  I  sent  it  by  him," 
"I  was  informed  by  telegraph."  Otherwise  misunderstand- 
ing is  inevitable.  Thus,  in  Acts  xii.,  9,  "He  wist  not  that  it 
was  true  which  was  done  by  the  angel"  {to  yiv6}i£vov  cm  tov 
ayyiXov)^  or  in  Acts  ii.,  43,  "Many  words  and  signs  were  done 
by  the  apostles"  {cia  tuiv  aTzoaToKwv  iyivETo),  no  English  reader 
would  suspect  that  the  angel  and  the  apostles  respectively 
are  represented  as  the  doers  only  in  the  sense  in  which  a 
chisel  may  be  said  to  carve  a  piece  of  wood,  as  instruments 
in  the  hands  of  an  initiative  power.  In  the  same  way.  Acts  ii., 
23, "  Ye  have  taken  and  by  wicked  hands  have  crucified  and 
slain"  is,  I  fancy,  wholly  misunderstood ;  nor,  indeed,  would 
it  be  easy,  without  a  knowledge  of  the  Greek,  cih  x"/"^'' 
avofiwv  ;*  to  discover  that  by  the  "  wicked  hands,"  or  rather 
"  lawless  hands,"  is  meant  the  instrumentality  of  the  ayofxoi, 
the  heathen  Romans,  Avhom  the  Jews  addressed  by  St.  Peter 
had  used  as  their  tools  to  compass  our  Lord's  death.  And 
again,  such  renderings  as  Gal.  iii.,  19,  "ordained  by  angels" 
{haraytic  ^i  iiyyiXwr),  and  Ephes.  iii.,  10, "  might  be  known  by 

*  I  have  taken  x^p^v  as  the  reading  which  our  translators  had  before  them. 
But  the  correct  text  is  unquestionably  £ia  xnphq  dv6fiu)v,"hy  the  hand  of 
lawless  men,"  which  brings  out  the  sense  still  more  clearly. 


FAULTS  OF  GRAMMAR.  109 

the  Church  {yybjpKrd^  2ia  rijQ  kicXriaiae,  i.  6.,  might  be  made 
known  throiigh  the  Church)  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God," 
are  quite  misleading.  It  was  not,  however,  for  the  sake  of 
such  isolated  examples  as  these  that  I  entered  upon  this  dis- 
cussion. There  are  two  very  important  classes  of  passages, 
in  which  the  distinction  between  vizo  {aizo)  and  cm  is  very  im- 
portant, and  in  which,  therefore,  this  ambiguity  is  much  to  be 
regretted. 

The  first  of  these  has  reference  to  Inspiration.  Wherever 
the  sacred  writers  have  occasion  to  quote  or  to  refer  to  the 
Old  Testament,  they  invariably  apply  the  preposition  2ia,  as 
denoting  instrunientality ,  to  the  lawgiver,  or  the  prophet,  or 
the  psalmist,  while  they  reserve  Wo,  as  signifying  the  primary 
motive  agency,  to  God  himself.  This  rule  is,  I  believe,  uni- 
versal. Some  few  exceptions,  it  is  true,  occur  in  the  received 
text,  but  all  these  vanish  when  the  readings  of  the  older  au- 
thorities are  adopted  ;*  and  this  very  fact  is  significant,  be- 
cause it  points  to  a  contrast  between  the  persistent  idea  of 
the  sacred  writers  themselves  and  the  comparative  indiffer- 
ence of  their  later  transcribers.  Sometimes  ha  occurs  alone, 
e.  g..  Matt,  xxi,,  4,  to  prfdev  Sia  tov  Trpo(j)l}TOv ;  xxiv.,  15,  to  prjdty 
2ia  Aavtj/X,  etc. ;  sometimes  in  close  connection  with  vtto,  e.  g., 
Matt,  i.,  22,  TO  pr]Bev  vtto  Kvpiov  hia  tov  irpocpijTOv  (comp.  ii.,  15). 
It  is  used,  moreover,  not  only  when  the  word  is  mentioned  as 
spolcen,  but  also  when  it  is  mentioned  as  written;  e.  g..  Matt, 
ii.,  5,  o'vTU)  yap  yiypanrai  ^la  tov  irpocpijTOv',  Luke  xviii.,  31,  Travra 
TO.  yfypa/Jijeya  ^la  tCjv  TrpocptfTwy.  Yet  this  significant  fact  is 
wholly  lost  to  the  English  reader. 

*  In  Matt,  ii.,  17;  iii.,3,the  readings  of  the  received  text  are  vtto  'lepeniov, 
v-ffb  'Uadiov  respectively,  but  all  the  best  critical  editions  read  Sia  in  both 
places,  following  thd  preponderance  of  ancient  authority.  In  Matt,  xxvii., 
3,> ;  Mark  xiii.,  14,  the  clauses  containing  virb  in  this  connection  are  inter- 
polations, and  are  struck  out  in  the  best  editions. 

In  all  these  four  passages  our  A.V.  has  "by,"  though  the  translators  had 
virb  in  their  text,  and  (following  their  ordinary  practice)  should  have  rendered 
it "  of."  Tyndale,  who  led  the  way,  probably  having  no  distinct  grammatical 
conception  of  the  difference  of  virb  and  Sid,  followed  his  theological  instinct 
herein,  and  thus  extracted  the  right  sense  out  of  the  false  reading. 


110    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  TEE  N.  TEST. 

The  other  class  of  passages  has  a  still  more  important  the- 
ological bearing,  having  reference  to  the  Person  of  Christ.  The 
preposition,  it  is  well  known,  which  is  especially  applied  to 
the  Office  of  the  Divine  Word,  is  cta;  e.g.,  John  i.,3,10,  Traira 
Zi  avTOv  iyirtTO  ...  6  Koarfxoe  cl  avrov  eyevero;  1  Cor.  viii.,  6,  eig 
Kuptoe  'IrjcTOuQ  XpiiTTug  ct  ov  to.  Trurra  (cat  yfielQ  ct  avTOv ;  Col.  i., 
16,  ret  TTcipra  dt  avrov  cat  elg  avrov  iKritrraL',  Heb.  i.,  2,  6i  ov  Kal 
iKoiriCTtv  rove  alu/yae',  11.,  10,  Ct  ov  ra  Tzavra  Ka\  Ci  ov  rot  TTuvra. 
In  all  such  passages  the  ambiguous  "  by"  is  a  serious  obsta- 
cle to  the  understanding  of  the  English  reader.  In  the  Ni- 
cene  Creed  itself,  the  expression  "  By  whom  {ci  ov)  all  things 
were  made,"  even  when  it  is  seen  that  the  relative  refers  not 
to  the  Father,  but  to  the  Son  (and  the  accidental  circumstance 
that  the  Father  is  mentioned  just  before  misleads  many  per- 
sons on  this  point),  yet  fails  to  suggest  any  idea  different 
from  the  other  expression  in  the  Creed,  "  Maker  of  heaven 
and  earth,"  which  had  before  been  applied  to  the  Father. 
The  perplexity  and  confusion  are  still  further  increased  by 
the  indistinct  rendering, "  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,"  etc., 
for  Qeoq  Ik  Qeov,  (piLc  Ik  (pwroc,  K.r.X.  —  words  which  in  them- 
selves represent  the  doctrine  of  God  the  Word  as  taught  by 
St.  John,  but  whose  meaning  is  veiled  by  the  English  prepo- 
sition of.  Thus  the  Nicene  doctrine  is  obscured  in  the  Ni- 
cene  formula  itself  as  represented  to  the  English  ear,  and  the 
prejudice  against  it,  which  is  necessarily  excited  by  misun- 
derstanding, ensues.  The  same  misconception  must  attend 
the  corresponding  passages  in  the  New  Testament ;  e.  g.,  John 
i.,  3,10,  "All  things  were  made  by  him,"  "The  world  was 
made  by  him."  In  this  case  it  is  much  easier  to  point  out 
the  defect  than  to  supply  the  remedy ;  but  surely  the  English 
Version  in  this  context  is  capricious  in  rendering  di  avrov  in 
the  two  passages  already  quoted  "5y  him,"  and  yet  in  an  in- 
termediate verse  (V)  translating  iravreg  Triareixrcjcnv  ci  avrov, 
"  all  men  through  him  might  believe,"  and  then  again  return- 
ing to  by  in  ver.  17,  6  vofjioe  cia  MttJutrewe  e^odt], »/  xap'C  f-'ot  h  aX^- 
deia  cia  'ItjctoD  Xpicrrov  iyivero,  "  The  law  was  given  Jy  Moses, 


FA  UL  TS  OF  GRAMMAR.  m 

but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ."  If  prescrijDtioii 
is  too  powerful  to  admit  the  rendering  "  through"  for  cm 
throughout  the  passage,  some  degree  of  consistency,  at  least, 
might  be  attained,  so  that  TntTrevffwaiy  cl  avrov  and  dik  Mwvaicjg 
iSodri  should  be  translated  the  same  way. 

But,  though  in  the  renderings  of  cih  with  the  genitive  we 
are  confronted  by  archaisms  i-ather  than  by  errors,  and  it 
might  be  difficult,  and  perhaps  not  advisable,  in  many  cases, 
to  meddle  Avith  them,  the  same  apology  and  the  same  impedi- 
ment do  not  apply  to  this  jDreposition  as  used  with  the  accu- 
sative. Here  our  translators  are  absolutely  wrong,  and  a  cor- 
rection is  imperative.  Though  they  do  not  ever  (so  far  as  I 
have  noticed)  translate  ciU  with  a  genitive  as  though  it  had 
an  accusative,  they  are  frequently  guilty  of  the  converse  er- 
ror, and  render  it  with  an  accusative  as  though  it  had  a  geni- 
tive. Thus  Matt.  XV.,  3,  6,  "Why  do  ye  transgress  the  com- 
mandment of  God  ?  ...  ye  have  made  the  commandment 
of  none  effect  by  your  tradition  {^ih  n)v  irapalomv  v/iwi^,"  i.e., 
"  for  the  sake  of  your  tradition,"  or  as  it  is  expressed  in  the 
parallel  passage,  Mark  vii.,  9,  'iva  tijv  irapacoaiv  v/jlCju  rripijaTjre 
[oT^fTjjrf]) ;  John  xv.,  3, "Now  ye  are  clean  through  the  word 
(2m  Tov  Xoyov) ;"  Rom.  ii.,  24,  "The  name  of  God  is  blasphemed 
among  the  Gentiles  through  you  {^i  vfidg) ;"  2  Cor.  iv.,15,"That 
the  abundant  grace  might  through  the  thanksgiving  of  many 
redound  to  the  glory  of  God  (^u'a  Ij  x"P'f  irXeovaaaira  cm  TcSiv 
TrXEiofijjy  T))y  ev^apicrTiav  Tvepiaaivar)  tlq  tijv  c6t,av  tov  Geou),"  where 
it  is  perhaps  best  to  govern  ttiv  sh-^^apiariav  by  TrepKTaeixrri  taken 
as  a  transitive,  but  where  the  English  Version,  at  all  events, 
has  three  positive  errors:  (1.)  translating  y  xupiq  -Xiovaaaaa 
as  if)/  TrXiovaaatra  j^apiq',  (2.)  rendering  Tuiv  TrXdovwv  as  if  TToX- 
Xwv;  (3.)  giving  the  wrong  sense  to  lib.  with  the  accusative; 
Heb. iv.,  V,  "Bringing  forth  herbs  meet  for  them  by  whom  it 
is  dressed  (ci'  dig  yewpyelrai)."  Yet  in  Rom.  viii.,11,  "He  shall 
Jilso  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  by  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth 
in  you,"  our  translators  were  apparently  alive  to  the  differ- 
ence of  signification  in  the  various  readings  iCa  -ov  ivoiKovvroq 

L 


112    LIGUTFOOf  ON  A  FEESE  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

.  .  .  TrvEVjiaroQ  and  cik  to  ivoikovv  .  .  .  Trrev/jLa,  lor  they  add  in 
the  margin,  "Or,  because  of  his  Spirit." 

In  translating  the  other  jsreiiositions  also  there  is  occasion- 
al laxity.  Thus  ettI  twv  vEcpeXwi'  is  rendered  "  in  the  clouds" 
(Matt,  xxiv'.,  30 ;  xxvi.,  64),  though  the  imagery  is  marred 
thereby,  and  though  the  mention  of  "  him  that  sat  on  the 
cloud  (eTTt  rrjg  vt^iXric)''''  hi  the  Apocalypse  (xiv.,15,16)  ought 
to  have  insured  the  correct  translation.  And  similarly  in 
Matt,  iv.,  6;  Luke  iv.,  11,  the  English  rendering  '■'■In  their 
hands  they  shall  bear  thee  up"  presents  a  different  picture 
from  the  tTrl  xeipcjv  of  the  original.*  Again,  the  i:)roper  force 
of  ft'c  is  often  sacrificed  where  the  loss  is  not  inappreciable. 
Ihus,  in  2  Cor.  Xl.,  3,  ovru)  <p6aprj  to.  roi'jfiara  vfiuiv  cnro  rj/e  ottXc- 
TTjTOQ  T)~}Q  dg  TOP  XpiaTuy  is  rendered  "So  your  minds  should  be 
corrupted  from  the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ,"  where  the 
true  idea  is  "  sincerity  or  fidelity  toioards  Christ,"  in  accord- 
ance with  the  image  in  the  context, "  That  I  may  present  you 
as  a  chaste  virgin  to  Christ."  Even  more  serious  is  the  in- 
jury done  to  the  sense  in  1  Cor.  viii.,  6,  aXX'  >//x7»'  dg  Qeog  !>  tto- 
rrip  II  ov  TCI  TTc'ivTa  icai  lifie'ig  elg  avToy,  KUi  elg  Kvpwg  'Irfffovg  Xpiarog 
hi  ov  TCI  ■Kcii'Ta  Kol  iifxe'ig  II  avTov,  where  the  Studiously  careful 
distribution  of  the  prepositions  in  the  original  is  entirely  de- 
ranged by  rendering  elg  avTov  "  in  him"  instead  of"  unto  him," 
though  here  a  marginal  alternative  "/or  him"  is  given. 

Again,  a  common  form  of  error  is  the  mistranslation  oi'j3aw- 


*  In  Markxii.,  26,  ovk  aveyvu)re  iv  Ty  jSifSXti)  Mwiiffkojg  IttI  tov  (3aTOv,7ru>g 
tiTTEv  avTiii  6  QeoCj  "  Have  ye  not  re<nd  in  the  book  of  Moses  how  in  the  bush 
God  spake  unto  him  ?"  the  wrong  idea  conveyed  in  the  English  Version  arises 
more  from  neglect  of  the  order  than  from  mistranslation  of  the  preposition. 
If  the  order  of  the  original  had  been  trusted,  our  translators  would  have  seen 
that  iirl  tov  fSoTov  must  mean  "in  the  passage  relating  to  the  bush,"  " in  the 
passage  called  the  bush"  (comp.  iv  HXiqi,  Rom.  xi.,  2,  "  in  the  history  of  Eli- 
jah," where  again  our  A.V.  has  the  wrong  rendering  "  o/"Elias").  Strangely 
enough,  WiclifFe  alone,  of  our  English  translators,  gives  the  right  meaning, 
*'Han  ye  not  rad  in  the  book  of  Moises  on  the  bousche  how  God  seide  to 
him?"  In  the  parallel  passage,  Luke  xx.,  37,  the  rendering  of  our  Author- 
ized Version  "  at  the  bush"  is,  at  all  events,  an  improvement  on  the  preceding 
translations  "besides  the  bush." 


FA  ULTS  OF  GEA2IMAE.  1 1 3 

Ti^uv  dg,  as  1  Cor.  i.,  13, "  Or  were  ye  baptized  m  the  name  of 
Paul  {ele  TO  ovofxa  UavXov)  ?"  So  again,  Matt,  xxviii.,19  ;  Acts 
viii.,  16.  In  Acts  xix.,  3,  5,  after  being  twice  given  correctly, 
"U7ito  what,  then,  were  ye  baptized?  And  they  said  iinto 
John's  baptism,"  nevertheless,  when  it  occurs  a  third  time,  it 
is  wrongly  translated,  "When  they  heard  this,  they  were  bap- 
tized in  the  name  {elg  to  ovoiia)  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  On  the 
other  hand,  in  Rom.  vi.,  3  ;  1  Cor.  x.,  2  ;  xii.,  13  ;  Gal.  iii.,  27, 
the  preposition  is  duly  respected. 

Again,  though  the  influence  of  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic 
has  affected  the  use  of  tj',  so  that  it  can  not  be  measured  by  a 
strictly  classical  standard,  still  the  license  which  our  version 
occasionally  takes  is  quite  unjustifiable.  In  such  passages  as 
Rom.  xiv.,  14,  oica  koX  iriTreicrfxaL  h  Kvpiu)  'hjcrov, "  I  know  and  am 
persuaded  by  the  Lord  Jesus;"  1  Cor.  xii.,13,  (vot  yap  h  h'l 
HvEvnaTL  yfielg  irayreg  dg  ey  awfia  £/3a7rr<'<70j?/i£>', "For  by  one  Spir- 
it are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,"  the  Hebraic  or  instru- 
mental sense  of  tv  is  indefensible. 

Lastly,  even  prepositions  with  such  well-defined  meanings 
as  OTTO  and  virip  are  not  always  respected  ;  as,  for  example,  in 
2  Thess.  ii.,1,  2, "Now  we  beseech  you, brethren,  Jy  (vTcp)  the 
coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  our  gathering  to- 
gether unto  him,  that  ye  be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind  (aTro  tov 
voog) ;"  while  elsewhere  irapa  is  similarly  ill  treated,  1  Pet.  ii., 
4,  "Disallowed  indeed  of  men  (utto  ai'SjOWTrw)'),  but  chosen  of 
God  (jrapa  Gfw  t/cXe^TOJ')." 

Under  these  three  heads  the  most  numerous  grammatical 
errors  of  our  version  fall.  But  other  inaccuracies  of  divers 
kinds  confront  us  from  time  to  time,  and  some  of  these  are  of 
real  importance.  Any  one  who  attempts  to  frame  a  system 
of  the  chronology  of  our  Lord's  life  by  a  comparison  of  the 
Gospel  narratives  with  one  another  and  with  contemporary 
Jewish  history  will  know  how  perplexing  is  the  statement  in 
our  English  Version  of  Luke  iii.,  23,  that  Jesus,  after  his  bap- 
tism, "began  to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age."    But  the  orig- 


1 14    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FBESH  EEVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

inal  need  not  and  (in  fact)  can  not  mean  this ;  for  ijv  apxo^tvoq 
u)(Tt\  irijp  TpLuKovra  must  be  translated  "was  about  thirty  years 
old  whoi  he  begwi'^  (i.  e.,  at  the  commencement  of  his  public 
life,  his  ministry) ;  where  wirel  is  sufficiently  elastic  to  allow 
a  year  or  two,  or  even  more,  either  under  or  over  the  thirty 
years ;  and,  in  fact,  the  notices  of  Herod's  life  in  Josephus 
compared  with  St.  Matthew's  narrative  seem  to  require  that 
our  Lord  should  have  been  somewhat  more  than  thirty  years 
old  at  the  time.  Again,  such  a  translation  as  Phil,  iv.,  3,  aw- 
Xa/jficipov  avralg  a'tTiyeg  .  .  .  ffvin'idXriaai'  fioi,  "  Help  those  loomeil 
which  labored  with  me,"  is  impossible ;  and,  going  hand  in 
hand  with  an  error  in  the  preceding  verse,  by  which  a  man, 
"  Euodias,"  is  substituted  for  a  woman, "  Euodia,"*  calls  for 
correction.  Again,  in  2  Pet.  iii.,  1 2,  the  rendering  of  aTrevhovrac 
rriv  "Kapovaiav  Tf/g  rov  Qeov  yfxepag,  "Hasting  unto  the  coming 
of  the  day  of  God,"  can  not  stand,  and  the  alternative  sug- 
gested in  the  margin,  "Hasting  the  coming,"  should  be  placed 
in  the  text;  for  the  words  obviously  imply  that  the  zeal  and 
steadfastness  of  the  faithful  will  be  instrumental  in  speeding 
the  final  crisis.  Again,  the  substitution  of  an  interrogative 
for  a  relative  in  Matt,  xxvi.,  50,  kralpe,  £<p'  o  Trapet, "  Friend, 
wherefore  art  thou  come  ?"  is  not  warranted  by  New-Testa- 
ment usage,  though  here  our  translators  are  supported  by 
many  modern  commentators,  and  the  expression  must  be 
treated  as  an  aposiopesis,  "Friend,  do  that  for  which  thou  art 
come."f  Again,  our  translators  have  on  more  than  one  oc- 
casion indulged  in  the  grammatical  fiction  oiHypallage,  ren- 
dering Tzphg  o\Kohoiir]v  rijg  \pdag^  "  for  the  use  of  edifying,"  in 
Ephes.  iv.,  29,  and  afipreg  tov  T)~ig  ap-)(ijg  tov  Xpiarov  Xoyoy  (Heb. 
vi.,  1), "  leaving  the  principles  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ."  In 
both  of  these  passages,  however,  there  is  a  marginal  note, 

*  The  Versions  of  Tyndale  and  Coverdale,  the  Great  Bible,  and  the  Bish- 
ops' Bible,  treat  both  as  men's  names,  Euodias  and  Syntiches  (Syntyches  or 
Sintiches)  ;  the  Geneva  Testament  (1557)  gives  both  correctly:  but  the  Ge- 
neva Bible  takes  up  the  intermediate  position,  and  is  followed  by  our  A.V. 
All  alike  are  wrong  in  the  translation  of  avralg  a'irtvtg. 

t  Thus  it  may  be  compared  with  John  xiii.,  27,  o  Tvoitlg,  iroirjaov  raxiov. 


FA  ULTS  OF  GRAMMAR.  \  \  5 

though  in  the  first  the  alternative  offered  "  to  edify  profita- 
bly" slurs  over  the  difliculty.  Such  grammatical  deformities 
as  these  should  be  swept  away.  Neither,  again,  should  we 
tolerate  such  a  rendering  as  1  Cor.  xii.,  28,  ajTtXjz/xii/ac,  Kvfoip- 
v{}tTuc,  "  helps  i)i  governments,"*  where  the  original  contem- 
plates two  distinct  functions,  of  which  avriXij/ji^ng  w^ould  ap- 
ply mainly  to  the  diaconate  and  k-vfjepvt'iaeiQ  to  the  presbytery, 
but  M'here  our  translators  have  had  recourse  to  the  grammat- 
ical fiction  of  ITendiadys.  A  somewhat  similar  instance  to 
the  last,  where  two  detached  words  are  combined  in  defiance 
of  the  sense,  is  1  Cor.  xvi,,  22,  "Let  him  be  Anathema  Maran- 
atha,"  where  doubtless  the  words  should  be  separated;  riru} 
urc'idf/ia'  Mapciy  ada,  "Let  him  be  anathema.  Maran  Atha" 
{i.  e.j "  The  Lord  cometh,"  or  "  is  come"). 

Isolated  examples  of  grammatical  inaccuracy  such  as  these 
might  be  multiplied ;  but  I  will  close  with  one  illustration, 
drawn  from  the  treatment  of  the  word  cpaipeiy.  The  distinc- 
tion between  (patveir,  "  to  shine,"  and  ^aiveaQai,  "  to  appear," 
is  based  on  an  elementary  principle  of  grammar.  It  is  there- 
foi-e  surprising  that  our  translators  should  not  have  observed 
the  difterence.  And  yet,  though  the  context  in  most  cases 
leads  them  right,  the  errors  of  which  they  are  guilty  in  par- 
ticular passages  show  that  they  proceeded  on  no  fixed  prin- 
ciple. Thus  we  have  in  Acts  xxvii.,  20,  /i^re  aaTpwv  iTTKpaivov- 
Twv  tVt  TrXsiovaQ  ///if'poc, "  Nor  Stars  in  many  days  appeared^'' 
and  conversely  in  Matt,  xxiv.,  2Y,  koX  (palverai  fwe  ou<r/xwj',"And 
shineth  even  unto  the  west,"  and  in  Phil,  ii.,  15,  iv  oh  (paiveade 
we  (pu)(rrfjp£e  Iv  KoafxM,  "Among  whom  ye  shine  as  lights  in  the 
world"  (where  the  marginal  alternative  of  an  imperative 
"  shine  ye"  is  given,  but  no  misgiving  seems  to  have  been 
suggested  to  our  translators  by  the  voice  of  0atVfo-0f).f  When 

*  This  is  the- rendering  in  the  edition  of  1611 ;  but  the  preposition  was 
struck  out  in  the  Cambridge  edition  of  1637  (and  possibly  earlier),  and  the 
text  is  commonly  printed  "  helps,  governments,"  but  without  any  authority. 

t  Again,  in  Rev.  xviii, ,  23,  (piog  Xixvov  oii  117)  (pavy  iv  aoi  in,  if  the  word 
was  accentuated  as  a  passive  ((part))  in  the  text  used  by  our  translators,  as 
was  probably  the  case,  they  have  rendered  it  incorrectly, "  The  light  of  the 


116    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

they  have  gone  so  far  wrong  in  a  simple  matter  of  inflection, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  syntactic  considerations  should  have 
been  overlooked,  and  that  they  should  not  have  recognized 
the  proper  distinction  between  0atvo/iiai  elrai,  "I  appear  to 
be,"  and  (pahofxai  wy,  "I  am  seen  to  be."  Of  this  error  they 
are  guilty  in  Matt,  vi.,  16, 18,  oVwe  faraxriv  roiq  avQpiOTroiQ  vria- 
TEUoyreg,  okioq  [xr)  (paprjg  rdlg  avdpijiroiQ  vsffTEVujy,  "  That  they  may 
appear  unto  men  to  fast,"  "  That  thou  appear  not  unto  men 
to  fast,"  though  the  sense  is  correctly  given  by  Tyndale  (with 
whom  most  of  the  older  versions  agree  substantially),  "That 
they  might  be  seen  of  men  how  they  fast,"  "  That  it  appear 
not  \mto  men  how  that  thou  fastest." 

The  directly  opposite  fault  to  that  which  has  just  been 
discussed  also  deserves  notice,  and  may  perhaps  be  consid- 
ered here.  If  hitherto  attention  has  been  directed  to  the  ig- 
norance or  disregard  of  Greek  grammar  in  our  translators, 
it  may  be  well  to  point  out  instances  in  which  they  have 
attempted  to  improve  the  original,  where  the  connection  is 
loose  or  the  structure  ungrammatical.  Tiiis  happens  most 
frequently  where  past  and  present  tenses  are  intermingled 
in  the  original;  e.g.,  Matt,  iii.,  15, 16,6 'Jjjo-owe  eIttev  irpog  ahrov 
.  .  .  tote  a.(pir](Tiv  avTov  .  .  .  Koi  fiaTTTLirdEiQ  o'lrjaovg  dve/S/j,  where, 
for  the  sake  of  symmetry,  a<pir}(nv  is  translated  suffered ;  or 
Mark  xiv.,  53,  54,  kuI  aTn'jyayov  tov  'Ir/aovy  .  .  .  /cai  (rvj'Epxor- 
Tai  avTbi  iravTEQ  .  .  .  Koi  6  JlETpoQ  ciTTO  fxaKpodEV  ^Ko\ovdri(TEV  avT^f 
where,  for  the  same  reason,  trvvEpxav-ai  is  given  were  assembled. 
In  all  such  cases  there  is  no  good  reason  for  departing  from 
the  original.  This  is  not  a  question  of  the  idiom  in  different 
languages,  but  of  the  style  of  a  particular  author;  and  pe- 
culiarities of  style  should,  as  far  as  possible,  be  reproduced. 

candle  shall  sMne  no  more  in  thee  ;"  but  here  Lachmann  and  others  read  the 
active  ^dvy.  In  Eev.  viii.,  12,  they  read  (paivy,  and  rightly  translated  it  • 
"shone;"  but  modern  critical  editors  substitute  ^dvy  or  <pap>).  In  Acts  xxi., 
3,"  When  we  had  discovered  Cyprus,"  the  correct  text  is  probably  dvacpa- 
vtvTtg  ot  Tr)v  KvTrpov,  but  "discovered"  seems  to  be  intended  as  a  transla- 
tion of  the  other  reading,  dvapdvavrtg. 


FAULTS  OF  GRAMMAR. 


117 


Moreover,  our  translators  themselves  have  not  ventured  al- 
ways to  reduce  the  tenses  to  uniformity,  so  that  the  license 
they  have  taken  results  in  capricious  alterations  here  and 
there,  which  serve  no  worthy  purpose. 

These,  however,  are  nothing  more  than  loosenesses  of  stylo. 
But  even  grammatical  inaccuracies  ought  to  be  preserved  as 
far  as  possible,  for  it  will  generally  be  found  that  in  such 
cases  the  grammar  is  sacrificed  to  some  higher  end — either 
greater  force  of  expression  or  greater  clearness  of  meaning. 
More  than  one  instance  of  this  occurs  in  the  Apocalypse.  In 
the  letters  to  the  Seven  Churches  the  messages  close  with 
words  of  encouragement  to  the  victor  in  the  struijGjle.  In 
the  last  four  of  these  the  words  6  vlkCjv  are  flung  out  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sentence  without  any  regard  to  the  subse- 
quent construction,  which  in  three  out  of  the  four  is  changed 
so  that  the  nominative  stands  alone  without  any  government: 

11.,  26,  Koi  6   viKwv 2w(ra»  avToi  et,ov(Tiap;  iii.,  12,  6  viKwy, 

TTOirjiTU)  avTov  (TTuXoVy  iii.,  21,6  viKLJy,  ^u)(T<i)  avTt^  Kadiffat.  In  the 
first  instance  only  have  our  translators  had  the  courage  to  re- 
tain the  broken  grammar  of  the  original,  "And  he  that  over- 
coraeth  .  .  .  io  Aim  will  I  give,"  acting  thus  boldly,  perhaps, 
because  the  intervening  words  partly  obscure  the  irregularity. 
In  the  other  two  cases  they  have  set  the  grammar  straight : 
"Him  that  overcometh  will  I  make  a  pillar,"  "To  him  that 
overcometh  will  I  grant  to  sit."  Yet  there  was  no  sufficient 
reason  for  making  a  difference,  and  in  all  alike  the  English 
should  have  commenced  as  the  Greek  commences, "  He  that 
overcometh." 

Would  it  be  thought  overbold  if  I  were  to  counsel  the  same 
scrupulous  adherence  to  the  form  of  the  original  in  a  still 
more  important  passage  ?  In  Rev.  i.,  4,  xap'C  vfjly  kuI  elpi^vr] 
a-Ko  \tov\  6  Cjv  K-ai  6  ?'/»/  koX  6  ipypfiEvoQ^  the  defiance  of  grammar 
is  even  more  startling.  It  may  be  true  that  a  cultivated 
Athenian  could  hardly  have  brought  himself  to  write  thus ; 
but  certainly  the  fisherman  of  Galilee  did  not  so  express  him- 
self from  mere  ignorance  of  Greek,  for  such  ignorance  as  this 


1 1 8    LIOETFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

supposition  would  assume  must  have  prevented  his  writing 
•the  Apocalypse  at  all.  In  this  instance,  at  least,  where  the 
apostle  is  dealing  with  the  Name  of  names,  the  motive  Avhich 
would  lead  him  to  isolate  the  words  from  their  context  is 
plain  enough.  And  should  not  this  remarkable  feature,  be 
preserved  in  our  English  Bible  ?  If  in  Exod.  iii.,  1 4,  the  words 
run, "  I  AM  hath  sent  me  unto  you,"  may  we  not  also  be  al- 
lowed to  read  here,  "  from  He  that  is,  and  that  avas,  and 
THAT  IS  TO  COME  ?"  Certainly  the  violation  of  grammar  would 
not  be  greater  in  the  English  than  it  is  in  the  Greek. 

§  5. 

If  the  errors  of  grammar  in  our  English  Version  are  very  nu- 
merous, those  of  lexicography  are  not  so  frequent.  Yet  even 
here  several  indisputable  errors  need  correction ;  not  a  few 
doubtful  interpretations  may  be  improved ;  and  many  vague 
renderings  will  gain  by  being  made  sharper  and  clearer. 

Instances  of  impossible  renderings  occur  from  time  to  time, 
though  the  whole  number  of  these  is  not  great.  By  impossi- 
ble renderings  I  mean  those  cases  in  which  our  translators 
.  have  assisrned  to  a  word  a  signification  which  it  never  bears 
elsewhere,  and  Avhich,  therefore,  we  must  at  once  discard,  with- 
out considering  whether  it  does  or  does  not  harmonize  with 
the  context. 

Such,  for  instance,  is  the  treatment'  of  the  particles  m  and 
r\lr\  in   occasional  passages  where   their  meaning   is  inter- 
changed in  our  version,  as  in  Mark  xiii.,  28,  mav  ai^n/c  r\lr\  h  • 
Kkaloq  cnraXog  yiyrjTai,  /c.r.X., "  When  her  branch  is  y^f^  tpntlpv  » 
for  "  As  soon  as  its  branch  is  tender"  (the  sign  of  approaching 
summer) ;  and  2  Cor.  i.,  23,  oIketi  7]\dou  elg  Kopivdoy,  "I  came  • 
ngiMSJU^et  unto  Corinth,"  for  "  I  came  nojnore  unto  Corinth" 
(I  paid  no  fresh  visit) ;  or  the  rendering  of  ajra^  in  Heb.  xii.,  • 
26,  'in  ctTra^  lyw  (te/w,  "  Yet  oicejiij^e  I  shake ;"  or  of  rat  ydp  in 
Matt.  XV.,  27,  vat,  Kvpu,  rat  yap  ra  Kvyapia  iadiei,  "  Truth,  Lord, 
yet  the  dogs  eat."    And  when  we  turn  from  particles  to  nouns 
and  verbs,  examples  will  not  fail  us.    Such  are  the  renderings 


FA  ULTS  OF  LEXICOGRAPHY. 


119 


of  a»'f;//£oc  in  Col.  iv.,  10,  "Marcus,  sister's  soti  to  Barnabas"  (6 
arE\pwQ  Ba/3vd/3a),for  cousin ;  of  (j)diyoTru}pivog  in  Jude  12,"  Trees  • 
whose  fruit  witheretK  v^\\\^c>'a\-  fi'iijf.  {MvSpa  (pdivotrupiva  arapTra), 
twice  dead,  plucked  up  by  the  roots,"  for  '■^autumn  trees  with- 
out fruit,  etc.,"  where  there  appears  to  be  a  reference  to  the 
parable  of  the  barren  fig-tree  (Luke  xiii.,  6),  and  where,  at  all 
events,  the  mention  of  the  season  when  fruit  might  be  ex- 
pected is  significant,*  while  under  any  circumstances  the  awk- 
ward contradiction  of  terms  in  our  English  Version  should 
have  suggested  some  misgiving;  of  Qpiajifitvuv  in  2  Cor.  ii.,  » 
14,  "  God,  which  always  causeth  us  to  triumph  (rw  TravTore  6pi- 
afifDEvopri  j/yuae)  in  Christ,"  for  "  leadeth  us  in  triumph,"  where 
the  image  of  the  believer  made  captive  and  chained  to  the  car 
of  Christ  is  most  expressive,  while  the  paradox  of  the  apostle's 
thanksgiving  over  his  own  spiritual  defeat  and  thraldom  is  at 
once  forcible  and  characteristic ;  and  of  irapiaiQ  in  Rom.  iii.,  « 
25,  "  To  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  past 
sins  {^la  rrjv  Tzapeciv  Twy  irpoyeyovorwi/  afiapTJjfiaTwv),^^  for  "5y» 
7'eason  of  the  passing  over  of  the  former  sins ;"  where  the 
dcfuble  error  of  mistranslating  dm,  and  of  giving  ■KuptaiQ  the 
sense  of  afeaic,  has  entirely  shattered  the  meaning,  and  where 
the  context  implies  that  this  signal  manifestation  of  God's 
righteousness  was  vouchsafed,  not  because  the  sins  were  for- 

*  Strange  to  say,  the  earliest  versions  all  rendered  ^OivoTrupivd  correctly. 
Tyndale's  instinct  led  him  to  give  what  I  can  not  but  think  the  right  turn  to 
the  expression :  "Trees  with  out  frute  at  gadringe  [gathering]  time/'/.e., at 
the  season  when  fruit  was  looked  for;  I  can  not  agree  with  Archbishop  Trench 
(p.  161),  who  maintains  that  "Tyndale  was  feehng  after,  though  he  has  not 
grasped,  the  right  translation, "and  himself  explains  ^divoiriDpivd,  aKapna,  as 
"  mutually  completing  one  another,"  without  leaves,  without  fruit.  Tyndale 
was  followed  by  Coverdale  and  the  Great  Bible.  Similarly  Wicliffe  has  "her- 
vest  trees  without  fruyt,"and  the  Bheims  Version  "Trees  of  Autumne, un- 
fruiteful."  The  earliest  offender  is  the  Geneva  Testament,  which  gives  "cor- 
rupt trees  and  without  frute,"  a  rendering  adopted  also  in  the  Geneva  Bible. 
The  Bishops'  Bible  strangely  combines  both  renderings,  "trees  withered  [^9i- 
vfiv]  at  fruite  geathering  [oTrwpo]  and  without  fruite,"  which  is  explained  in 
the  margin  "Trees  withered  in  Autumne  when  the  fruite  harvest  is, and  so 
the  Greke  woord  importeth,"  while  at  the  same  time  other  alternative  inter- 
pretations are  given. 


1 20    LIGHTFOOr  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

given,  but  because  they  were  only  overlooked  for  the  time 

without  being  forgiven.*     Other  examples,  again,  are  avXa- 

•    ydiyeiv  m  Col.  ii.,  8,  ^//  tIq  vftag   'iarai  6  o-vXaywywv,  "  Lest  any 

man  spoil  you,"  for  '"''make  spoil  of  you,"  '"''carry  you  off  as 

»  plunder ;''''  7rpo/3t/3a<^£iv  in  Matt,  xiv.,8, 7r|Oo/3i/3a(T0f7(Ta  vito  Tt'rg  jit- 
rpoQ  aur/7c, "  Being  before  instructed  by  her  mother,"  for  "being 
pi(t  forioard,  urged,  by  her  mother,"  for  there  is  no  instance 
of  the  temporal  sense  of  the  preposition  in  this  compound  ; 

•  £7rfjOwr7/^a  in  1  Pet.  iii.,  21,"The  ansicer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God,"  for  "  the  question^''  where  the  word  may  mean 
dk  p>etition.,  but  certainly  can  not  mean  an  answer ;  ciKaiujjiara 

tf  in  Rom.  ii.,  26,  "  If  the  circumcision  keep  the  righteousness  of 

yithe  law,"  for  "  the  ordinances  of  the  law ;"  Trwpovp,  Trwpwaic,  in 

*lthe  Epistles  (Rom.  xi.,  V,  25;  2  Cor.  iii.,  14;  Eph.  iv.,  18),  where 
they  are  always  rendered  "blind,  blindness,"  though  correctly 
translated  in  the  Gospels  (Mark  iii.,  5  ;  vi.,  52  ;  John  xii.,  40), 
"  harden,  hardness. "f 

In  some  cases  the  wrong  rendering  of  our  translators  arose 
from  a  false  derivation,  which  was  generally  accepted  in  their 

•age.  Thus  adpawc  is  rendered  "harmless"  (from  Ktpag,  Kepaiiiu)), 
Matt.  X.,  16;  Phil,  ii.,  15,  instead  of  "  simple,  pure,  sincere" 
(from  Kspctj'j'v^t, "  to  mix,  adulterate"),  though  in  Rom.  xvi.,19 

O  it  is  correctly  given. J  So  also  kpSda  is  taken  to  mean  "  strife, 
contention"  (Rom.  ii.,  8;  2  Cor.  xii.,  20;  Gal.  v.,  20;  Phil,  i., 
17;  ii.,  3;  James  iii.,  14, 16),  from  its  supposed  connection 
with  ipiQ ;  whereas  its  true  derivation  is  from  epiQog, "  a  hired 

V  partisan,"  so  that  it  denotes  "  party  spirit."     And  again,  in 

*  An  alternative  sense  oiwaptaiv  is  given  in  the  margin,  '^^or  passing  over;" 
but  this  is  not  sufficient  to  elicit  the  right  meaning  without  also  correcting  the 
rendering  of  £ia. 

t  This  illustrates  the  incongruity  which  results  from  assigning  different 
parts  of  the  New  Testament  to  different  persons.  In  the  instance  before  us, 
however,  a  compromise  is  effected  by  marginal  alternatives.  In  Mark  iii., 
5,  the  margin  has  "or  blindness  ;"  in  Rom.  xi.,  7, 2.5  ;  Eph.  iv.,  1 8,  '■''or  hard- 
ened," ^'■or  hardness."  In  the  other  passages  there  is  no  margin  in  the  edition 
of  1611. 

X  In  Matt.  X.,  16,  however,  the  margin  has  '■'^ or  simple,"  and  in  Phil,  ii., 
15,  "or  sincere." 


FA  UL  TS  OF  LEXICO  GRAPHY. .  121 

Jude  12,  oirot   e'ktw  kv  toIq  ayairaiq  vfiuii'   ffrtXactf,  "  TllCSG    are   < 

spots  in  your  feasts  of  charity,"  <r7ri\aofc, "  rocks,"  is  translated 
as  if  (TTziXoi,  "  spots  ;"*  our  translators  having  doubtless  been 
influenced  by  the  parallel  passage  2  Pet.  ii.,13,  airlXoi  kqI  fxwfioi 
iyrpixpuiyreg  kv  toIq  unaraie  avTwv^''''S2)ots  are  they  and  blemishes, 
sporting  themselves  with  their  own  deceivings."f  The  last 
example  of  this  class  of  errors  which  I  shall  take  is  the  sur- 
name of  Simon  the  apostle,  "the  Canaailite."  The  correct 
form  of  the  word  is  Kavavaiog,  not  Kavav/rTjc,  in  both  passages 
where  it  occurs  (Matt.  x,,4 ;  Mark  iii.,18),but  the  latter  stood 
in  the  text  which  our  translators  had  before  them.  Yet  this 
false  reading  certainly  should  not  have  misled  them,  for  Xam-  .> 
j-atoc,  the  word  for  the  Canaanite  in  the  LXX.  and  in  Matt. 
XV.,  22,  is  even  farther  from  KayavirrjQ  than  from  KamvaToe. 
The  parallel  passages  in  St.  Luke  (Luke  vi.,  15;  Acts  i.,  13) 
point  to  the  fact  that  this  surname  is  the  Aramaic  word  Ka- 
nan,  "jxsp,  corresponding  to  the  Greek  <^7?Xwr?/c, "  the  Zealot  ;J 

*  At  least  this  is  the.  view  taken  by  modern  commentators  almost  univer- 
sally ;  but  it  does  not  seem  to  me  certain  that  ainXd^tQ  here  can  not  mean 
"spots  ;"  for  (1.)  All  the  early  versions  connect  it  with  this  root,  translating 
it  either  as  a  substantive  "stains,"  or  as  an  adjective  "polluted."  This  is 
the  case  with  the  Old  and  the  Revised  Latin,  with  both  the  Egyptian  versions, 
and  with  the  Philoxenian  Syriac  ;  nor  have  I  noticed  a  single  one  which  ren- 
ders it"rocks."  (2.)  As  ffTTiXoe  (or  (TTTJXoc),  which  generally  signifies  a"  spot"  - 
or  "  stain,"  sometimes  has  the  sense  "a  rock,"  so  conversely  it  is  quite  possi- 
ble that  (TTTiXoe,  "a  rock,"  should  occasionally  exchange  its  ordinary  mean- 
ing for  that  of  (tttTAoc.  (3.)  In  one  of  the  Orphic  poems,  Lith.,  G14,  KardariK- 
Tov  (TTTiXaSeam  wpayniv  XniKaiQ  tc  fifXaivonivaic  x^otpa7g  n,  it  has  this  sense; 
and,  though  this  poem  was  apparently  not  written  till  the  fourth  centuiy,  still 
it  seems  highly  improbable  that  the  writer  should  have  derived  this  sense  of 
the  word  solely  from  St.  Jude.  If  he  did  so,  it  only  shows  how  fixed  this  in- 
terpretation had  become  before  his  time.  (4.)  The  extreme  violence  of  the 
metaphor, "  rocks  in  your  feasts  of  charity,"  is  certainly  not  favorable  to  the 
interpretation  which  it  is  proposed  to  substitute.  And  (5.)  though  this  ar- 
gument must  not  be  pressed,  yet  the  occurrence  of  airWoi  kuI  nwnoi  in  the 
parallel  passage  (2  Pet.  ii.,  13)  must  be  allowed  some  weight  in  determining 
the  sense  of  amXaSeQ  here. 

t  I  have  quoted  the  passage  as  it  stands  in  the  received  text,  iv  rale  ciird- 
raic,  but  IV  rale  dydiraig  is  read  by  Lachmann  and  Tregelles,  as  in  Jude  12. 

J  See  Ewald,  Gesch.  des  V.  Isr.,  v.,  p.  322  ;  Derembourg,  L'Histoire-  de  la 
Palestine,  p.  238.    This  is  a  common  tennination  of  names  of  sects  when 


122    LIOHTFOOT  ON  A  FBESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

and  this  being  so,  it  is  somewhat  strange  that  our  translators 
should  have  gone  astray  on  the  word,  seeing  that  the  Greek 
form  for  ij"5n,  "  Canaanite,"  is  invariably  spelt  correctly  with 
an  X  corresponding  to  CajijA,  and  not  with  a  K  correspond- 
ing to  Koph.  The  earlier  versions,  however,  all  suppose  the 
word  to  involve  the  name  of  a  place,  though  they  do  not  all 
I'ender  it  alike.  Tyndale,  Coverdale,  and  the  Great  Bible 
have  "Simon  of  Cane"  or"Cana;"  the  Geneva  Testament 
(ISS"?)  has  "  of  Canan"  in  the  one  place,  and  of"  Cane"  in  the 
other ;  the  Geneva  Bible  "  Cananite"  in  both.  The  Bishops' 
Bible,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  first  prints  the  word  with  a 
double  a  (Matt,  x.,  4),  thus  fixing  the  reference  to  Canaan.* 

Grecized  ;  e.  g., ' kaailaioQ,  ^apivaTog,  ^aSSovKaloc,  'EuffaToc  (Hegesippus  in 
Euseb.,  H.E.,  iv.,  23).  This  fact  seems  to  liave  escaped  Meyer  when  he 
points  to  the  termination  as  showing  that  JLavavaioQ  denotes  the  name  of  a 
place,  and  thus  exhibits  a  false  tradition,  while  the  true  account  is  preserved 
in  the  '0]\wti)q  of  St.  Luke.  Indeed,  the  formation  oi  Kavavalog  from  Kanan 
is  exactly  analogous  to  that  of  <bapiaa1oQ  from  Pharish,  or  'kaai^alog  from 
Hhasid.  Meyer  confesses  himself  at  a  loss  to  name  any  place  to  which  he 
can  refer  KavavaXoQ. 

In  the  Peshito  Kavavaiop  is  translated  rtLUkJuD ,  but  TiavavaloQ  f^  «<v  <^, 
where  the  difference  of  the  initial  letter  and  the  insertion  of  the  ^  in  the  lat- 
ter word  show  that  in  this  version  the  forms  were  not  confounded. 

*  To  this  list  of  false  derivations  some  would  add  Karavv^iQ  in  Rom.  xi. ,  8, 
where  irvevfia  KUTavv^tojQ  is  rendered  "the  spirit  of  slumber,"  though  with 
the  marginal  alternative  remorse ;  but  I  doubt  whether  Archbishop  Trench 
is  right  in  saying  (p.  153)  that  "  our  translators  must  have  derived  Karavv^iq 
from  vvard^Hv,  as  many  others  have  done."  The  fact  is,  that  Karavvaaeiv, 
KaTuvv'iiQ,  are  frequently  used  in  the  LXX.  to  translate  words  denoting  heavy 
sleep,  silence,  amazement,  and  the  Uke,  e.  g.,  Levit.  x.,  3  ;  Psa.  iv.,  .5 ;  xxx., 
13  ;  XXXV.,  15 ;  Isa.  vi.,  5  ;  Dan.  x.,  9  ;  and  in  the  very  passage  to  which  St. 
Paul  here  refers,  Isa.  xxix.,  10,  Karavv^iQ  represents  the  Hebrew  l^:a^■ln, 
"  deep  sleep."  The  idea  of  numbness  is  the  connecting  link  between  prick- 
ing, wounding,  and  stupor,  heavy  sleep.  Fritzsche  (Rom.,  ii.,  p.  558  seq.)  has 
an  important  excursus  on  the  word,  but  is  not  always  happy  in  his  explana- 
tion of  the  LXX.  renderings.  The  earlier  English  versions  generally  adopt- 
ed the  more  literal  meaning  of  Kardvv^ic.  Thus  Wicliffe  and  the  Rheims 
Version  have  "compunction,"  after  the  Vulgate;  Tyndale,  Coverdale,  and 
the  Great  Bible,  "  unquietness ; "  the  Bishops'  Bible,  "remorse,"  with  the 
marginal  note,  "That  is,  pricking  and  unquietnesse  of  conscience."  The  Ge- 
neva Testament  (1557)  is  as  usual  the  innovator,  rendering  the  word  "heavy 
sleep."  For  this  the  Geneva  Bible  substitutes  "slumber,"  but  with  a  margin 
^^  or  pricking." 


FAULTS  OF  LEXICOOBAPHY.  123 

There  are  other  passages  where,  though  the  word  itself 
will  admit  the  meaning  assigned  to  it  in  our  version,  and  so 
this  meaning  can  not  be  called  impossible,  yet  the  context 
more  or  less  decidedly  favors  another  sense.  Examples  be- 
longing to  this  class  are  James  iii.,  5,  Icov  okiyov  [1.  iiKiKov\  irvp* 
iiXkriv  vXr)v  upcnrTet, "  Behold  how  great  a  matter  a  little  fire 
kindleth,"  where  the  literal  meaning  of  vXt)  is  certainly  to  be 
preferred  to  the  philosophical,  and  where  it  is  most  strange 
that  our  translators,  having  the  correct  word, "  wood,"  pres- 
ent to  their  minds,  should  have  banished  it  to  the  margin ; 
Matt.  xxvi.,15,£(7r7jo-ar  aurw  rpu'iKOPTa  apyiipm,  "  They  covenant- 
ed with  him  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver,"  where  the  passage  in 
Zechariah  (xi.,  12,  "They  iceighed  for  my  price  thirty  pieces 
of  silver,"  LXX.  tarrjaay)  to  which  the  evangelist  alludes 
ought  to  have  led  to  the  proper  rendering  of  the  same  word 
here,  ^^ iceighed  unto  him;"  Heb.  ii.,  1^,  oh  yap  h'jrrov  ayyiXojv 
ETTiXafifiavETai  aXXa  (nrtpfiaTog  'Afipahfj.  i-KiXauBavETai^  "  He  took 
not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels,  but  he  took  on  him  the  seed 
of  Abraham,"  where  the  context  suggests  the  more  natural 
meaning  of  kiziXaiijoavKTQcn,  "  To  take  hold  of  for  the  purpose 
of  supporting  or  assisting"  (comp.  ver.  18,  fioriQiiaai) ;  Mark  iv., 
29,  oTav  Tzapaldi  6  KupTroe,  "When  the  fruit  is  brought  forth,^"* 
Avhere  the  right  meaning  rijje  is  given  in  the  margin ;  Acts 
ii.,  3,  cia/jepi^Ofierai  yXuxraai  wdd  Trvpog,  "Cloven  tongues  as  of 
fire,"  Avhere  the  imagery  and  the  symbolism,  not  less  than  the 
tense,  suggest  a  different  rendering  of  ^lafiepii^o/jievm,  parting 
asunder  j  2  Cor.  iv.,  4,  eIq  to  fit)  avydaai  \avTo~iQ\  tov  (pwTiafxoy 
-ov  £i/ayy£\/ou,  "Lest  the  light  of  the  Gospel  .  .  ,  shoidd  shine 
unto  them,"  where  indeed  the  fault  was  not  with  the  trans- 
lators, but  with  the  reading,  since,  having  avTolq  in  their  text, 
they  had  no  choice  but  to  translate  the  words  so ;  but  when 
av-o'iQ  is  struck  out  (as  it  should  be),  a  different  sense  ought 
perhaps  to  be  given  to  ai/yao-at, "  That  they  might  not  heliold 

The  reasons  ^hy  I  do  not  class  iTrioimog  among  these  words,  in  which  a 
mistaken  derivation  has  led  to  a  wrong  translation,  will  be  given  in  the  Ap- 
pendix. 


124    LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

the  liglit,"  etc.     Another  and  a  very  imjDortant  example  of 

♦this  class  of  errors  is  the  rendering  of  Tralc  in  Acts  iii.,13, 26; 
iv,,  27,  30,  where  it  is  translated  "son"  or  "child"  in  place 
of  "  servant,"  thus  obliterating  the  connection  with  the  pro- 
phetic announcement  of  the  "  servant  of  the  Lord"  in  Isaiah.* 
It  is  not  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  Sonship,  but  the  ministry,  on 
which  the  apostles  dwell.  In  Matt,  xii.,  18,  where  the  proph- 
ecy itself  (Isa.  xlii.,  1)  is  quoted  and  applied  to  our  Lord,  the 
words  are  rightly  translated,  "  Behold,  I  send  ray  servant  f 
and,  indeed,  when  confronted  with  the  original,  no  one  Avould 
think  of  rendering  it  otherwise.     Other  instances,  again,  are 

•  the  rendering  oi  dipnv  in  John  i^  29,6  aVpwj'  r//i'  a^iap-iav  -ov 
Kofffiov,  "  Which  talceth  mcay  the  sin  of  the  world,"  Avhere  the 
marginal  reading  beareth  should  probably  be  substituted  in 
the  text;  and  similarly  of  avevtyKtiv  in  Heb.  ix.,  28;  1  Pet. 
ii.,  24,  avf.vtyKtiv  a/japriac,  "  To  bear  the  sins,"  where  the  true 
idea  is  not  that  of  sustaining  a  burden,  but  of  raising  upon 

>  the  cross.  So,  again,  ■Kf.Tr\r}po(popr)iiivwv  in  Luke  i.,  l,2Drobably 
means  "  fulfilled"  rather  than  "  most  surely  believed,"  as  in 
the  latter  sense  the  passive  is  used  only  of  the  persons  con- 
vinced, and  not  of  the  things  credited.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
is  not  certain  whether  ftaarai^tiv  means  "  to  carry  off,  to  steal," 
in  John  xii.,  6,  rh  (oaWofiEva  tftaara^EP,  or  whether  the  English 
Version  "  bare  what  was  put  therein"  should  stand. 

In  another  class  of  words,  the  English  rendering,  while  it 
can  not  be  called  incorrect,  is  vague  or  inadequate,  so  that 
the  exact  idea  of  the  original  is  not  represented,  or  the  sharp- 
ness of  outline  is  blurred.     This  defect  will  be  most  obvious 

•  in  metajDhors.  For  instance,  in  Rom.  vi.,  13,  where  g^a  ahi:- 
iag  is  rendered  ^^instruments  of  unrighteousness"  instead  of 
arms  or  weapons  (which,  however,  is  given  as  an  alternative 
in  the  margin),  we  fail  to  recognize  the  image  of  military 
service  rendered  to  Sin  as  a  great  king  (ver.  12,  ^))  IjacnXevlrw) 
who  enforces  obedience  (vTraicoveip)  and  pays  his  soldiery  in 
the  coin  of  death  (verse  23,  ra  6\pu)ria  rrjs  afiapriag  dayarog). 
*  See  especially  Trench,  Authorized  Version,  p.  95. 


FA  ULTS  OF  LEXICOORAPHT.  \  25 

Again,  the  rendering  of  Col.  ii.,  5,  v^Cjv  t))v  -uIlv  koX  to  (rrepedi- 
fia  Ti'ig  elg  Xpiarov  iritTTttoQ  vfxiov, "  Your  order  and  the  Steadfast- 
ness of  your  faith  in  Christ,"  fails  to  suggest  the  idea  of  the 
close  phalanx  arrayed  for  battle  which  is  involved  in  the  orig- 
inal;* and  similarly  in  2  Cor.  x.,  5,  Trai'  u\pb)jj.a  iiraipo/jLEPoy  Kara 
rfjc  yywcredjg  tov  9foD,  our  translators,  in  rendering  the  words 
"  Every  hir/h  thing  that  exalteth  itself  against  the  knowledge 
of  God,"  appear  not  to  have  seen  that  this  expression  contin- 
ues the  metaphor  of  the  campaign  {(TTparevoixeda)  and  the  for- 
tresses {oxvpi^nara)  in  the  context,  and  that  the  reference  is 
to  the  siege-works  thrown  vp  for  the  purpose  of  attacking  the 
faith.  Again,  the  metaphor  oi  KaravapKav  is  very  inadequate- 
ly given  in  2  Cor.  xi.,  9,  "I  was  chargeable  to  no  man,"  and 
in  xii.,  1.3, 14,  "I  was  not,  I  will  not  be,  burdensome  to  any 
one ;"  and  the  "  thorn  in  the  flesh"  in  the  English  Version  of  t 
2  Cor.  xii.,  7  has  suggested  interpretations  of  St.  Paul's  mal- 
ady, which  the  original  ukuKo-^,  "  a  stake^''  does  not  counte-  « 
nance,  and  is  almost  as  wide  of  the  mark  as  the  Latin  stim-^^ 
ulus  carnis,  which  also  has  led  to  much  misunderstanding. 
These  are  a  few  instances  out  of  many  which  might  be  given 
where  a  metaphor  has  suffered  from  inadequate  rendering. 

Other  examples  also,  where  no  metaphor  is  involved,  might 
be  multiplied.  Thus,  in  Matt,  ix.,  16 ;  Mark  ii.,  21, it  is  difficult 
to  see  why  our  translators  should  have  abandoned  the  natu- 
ral expression  "undressed  cloth,"  which  occurs  in  the  Geneva 
Testament  as  a  rendering  of  patcog  ayya(l>oy,  for  "new  cloth,"* 
contenting  themselves  with  putting  "raw  or  unwrought"  in 
the  margin.  In  Matt,  xxvi.,  36  ;  Mark  xiv.,  32,  we  read  in  the 
English  Version  of  "  a  23lace  called  Gethsemane ;"  the  Greek, 
however,  is  not  x'»'poc,  but  -xwpiov ;  not  a  place,  but  "  a  parcel  «• 
of  ground"  (as  it  is  rendered  in  John  iv.,  5),  an  inclosure,  a 
field  or  garden,  and  thus  corresponds  more  closely  to  KiiTog, 
by  which  St.  John  describes  the  same  locality,  though  with- 
out mentioning  the  name  (xviii.,1).     In  Acts  i.,  3,  oirTavofiEvog  • 

*  1  Mace,  ix.,  14,  tlhv  'lovdag  on  BaKxi^rjg  Kat  rb  cripkuna  Trjg  irapsfi- 
(3o\fjg  tv  Tolg  SiKio7g. 


126    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

avTo'iQ  should  not  have  been  translated  "being  seen  q/them," 
for  the  emphatic  word  oTrrayecrdai,  which  does  not  occur  else- 
where in  the  New  Testament,  expresses  much  more  than  this, 
and  '■'■shoioing  himself  unto  them"  would  be  a  better,  though 
still  an  inadequate  rendering.     In  Rom.  ii.,  22,  b  fileXvanoiieyoQ 

%  Ta  e'i^wXa  lepotrvXe'ic,  the  inconsistency  of  the  man  who  plim- 
ders  a  heathen  tempjle  while  professing  to  loathe  an  idol  is  lost 
by  the  rendering  "dost  thou  commit  sacrilege;''''  and  indeed 
it  may  be  suspected  that  our  translators  misapprehended  the 
force  of  lepotTvXe'iQ,  more  esiDccially  as  in  most  of  the  earlier 
versions  it  was  translated  "  robbest  God  of  his  honor."     In 

/-Acts  xiv.,  13,  "Then  the  priest  of  Jupiter  which  was  before 
[the  city  brought  oxen  and  garlands  unto  the  gates,"  the  En- 

-iglish  reader  inevitably  thinks  of  the  city  gates;  but  as  the 
•Greek  has  ■n-vXwvac,  not  TruXac,  the  portal,  or  gateway,  or  vesti- 
bule of  the  Temple  is  clearly  meant.  This  was  seen  by  Tyn- 
dale,  who  quaintly  translates  it  "  the  church  porch."  In  Acts 
xvii.,  29,  St.  Paul,  addressing  an  audience  of  heathen  philoso- 
phers, condescends  to  adopt  the  language  familiar  to  them, 
and  speaks  of  t6  QCiov — an  expression  which  does  not  occur 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  in  the  English  render- 
ing "  Godhead"  this  vague  philosophical  term  becomes  con- 
crete and  precise,  as  though  it  had  been  ^eo-jjc  in  the  original. 

%  In  Acts  xiii.,  50,  and  elsewhere,  ol  aefju^xevoi.  al  aifto/iEvai,  by 
which  St. Luke  always  means  "proselytes,  worshipers  of  the 
one  God,"  are  translated  "  devout ;"  and  hence  the  strange 
statement  (which  must  perplex  many  an  English  reader)  that 
"  the  Jews  stirred  up  the  devout  and  honorable  women  .  .  . 
and  raised  persecution  against  Paul  and  Barnabas."   In  2  Cor. 

%  xiii.,  11,  KaTap-i^etrde  is  rendered  "  be  ^:)er/ec^,"  and  in  the  9th 
verse,  t>)v  v/jluiv  icaTc'ipTitriv,  '"'•  J owv perfectio7i  f  but  the  context 
shows  that  in  these  parting  injunctions  St.  Paul  reiterates  the 
leading  thought  of  the  Epistles,  exhorting  the  Corinthians  to 
compose  their  differences  ;  and  this  is  the  meaning  of  1  Cor. 
i.,  10,  ?)r£  Se  Karr)pTi(T\iivoi  i.v  rw  avrw  voi,  where  it  is  better 
rendered  "  that  ye  be  perfectly  joined  together.,  etc."     Lastly, 


TREATMENT  OF  PEOFEJH  NAMES,  ETC.  \21 

in  1  Tim.  iii.,  3;  Tit.  i.,  7,  //»)  irapoiroi'  is  translated  "not  given  ' 
to  wine ;"  but  in  the  first  passage  this  idea  is  already  ex- ' 
pressed  by  vij^aXtov,  and,  natural  as  the  more  obvious  render- 
ing might  seem,  the  usage  oiirupoiroQ  elsewhere  shows  that  it 
denotes  "a  brawler,"  "a  quarrelsome  person"  (which  is  the 
alternative  meaning  offered  in  the  margin). 

I  will  close  this  section  with  an  illustration,  of  which  it  is 
difficult  to  say  whether  we  should  more  properly  class  it  un- 
der the  head  of  lexicography  or  of  grammai*.  'Laj^liaTa  is  the 
Aramaic  form  of  the  Hebrew  word  for  "  a  sabbath"  written 
out  in  Greek  letters.  Appearing  in  this  form,  it  is  naturally 
declined  as  a  plural,  o-a/3/3a-a,  craftparu)^,  but  nevertheless  re- 
tains its  proper  meaning  as  a  singular.  How  widely  this 
form  was  known,  and  how  strictly  it  preserved  its  force  as 
a  singular,  will  appear  from  Horace's  "  Hodie  tricesima  sab.- 
bata."  In  our  version  of  the  New  Testament,  whenever  the 
meaning  is  unmistakable  it  is  translated  as  a  singular  (e.  g., 
Matt,  xii.,  1,11;  Mark  i.,  21 ;  ii.,  23  ;  iii.,  2  ;  Acts  xiii.,  14) ; 
but  where  the  sense  is  doubtful  a  plural  rendering  is  mostly 
preferred  (e.  g.,  Matt,  xii.,  5, 10, 1 2  ;  Mark  iii.,  4).  In  all  these 
cases,  however,  it  is  much  better  treated  as  a  singular,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  sense  which  it  bears  in  the  same  contexts ; 
and  in  such  a  passage  as  Col.  ii.,  16,  h  fxipei  toprijc  »}  reofirji'lag 
*/  iTa(3(3aTU)v,  the  plural  "sabbath -days"  is  obviously  out  of^ 
place,  as  co-ordinated  with  two  singular  nouns.  The  only 
passage  in  the  New  Testament  where  o-d/3/3a-a  is  distinctly 
plural  is  Acts  xvii.,  2,  Inl  cro/3/3ara  rpia,  where  it  is  defined  by 
the  numeral. 


Over  and  abo.ve  the  ordinary  questions  of  translation,  there 
is  a  particular  class  of  words  which  presents  special  difficul- 
ties and  needs  special  attention.  Proper  names,  official  titles, 
technical  terms,  which,  as  belonging  to  one  language  and  one 
nation,  have  no  direct  equivalents  in  another,  must  obviously 
be  treated  in  an  exceptional  way.    Are  they  to  be  reproduced 

M 


128    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FBESH  EEVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

as  they  stand  in  the  original,  or  is  the  translator  to  give  the 
terms  most  nearly  corresponding  to  them  in  the  language  of 
his  version?  Is  he  to  adopt  the  policy  of  despair,  or  the 
policy  of  compromise  ?  Or  may  he  invoke  either  principle 
according  to  the  exigencies  of  the  case  ?  and,  if  so,  what  laws 
can  be  laid  down  to  regulate  his  practice  and  to  prevent 
caprice  ? 

Of  this  class  of  words,  proper  names  are  the  least  difficult 
to  deal  with ;  and  yet  even  these  occasionally  offer  perplex- 
ing problems. 

,  The  general  principles  on  which  our  translators  proceeded 
in  this  matter  are  twofold.  First,  where  no  familiar  English 
form  of  a  name  existed,  they  retained  the  form  substantially 
as  they  found  it.  In  other  words  they  reproduced  the  Hebrew 
or  Chaldee  form  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  Greek  in  the 
New.  Secondly,  where  a  proper  name  had  been  adopted  into 
the  English  language,  and  become  naturalized  there  with 
some  modification  of  form,  or  where  the  person  or  place  was 
commonly  known  in  English  by  a  name  derived  from  some 
other  language,  they  adopted  this  English  equivalent,  how- 
ever originated.  Instances  of  English  equivalents  arrived  at 
by  the  one  process  are  Eve,  Herod,  James,  John,  Jude,  Luke, 
Magdalene,  Mary,  Peter,  Pilate,  Saul,  Stephen,  Zebedee,  Italy, 
Rome,  etc. ;  of  the  other,  Assyria,  Ethiopia,  Euphrates,  Idu- 
raea,  Mesopotamia,  Persia,  Syria,  etc.,  Artaxerxes,  Cyrus,  Da- 
rius, etc.,  for  Asshur,  Gush,  Phrath,  Edom,  Aram-Naharaim, 
Pharas,  Aram,  etc.,  Arta-chshashta,  Cor'esh,  Dai'yavesh,  etc., 
in  the  Old  Testament,*  the  more  familiar  classical  forms  being 
substituted  for  the  less  familiar  Hebrew ;  and  of  Diana,  Ju- 
piter, Mercurius,  for  Artemis,  Zeus,  Hermes,  in  the  New,  the 
more  familiar  Latin  being  substituted  for  the  less  familiar 

*  la  this,  however,  there  is  great  inconsistency.  Thus  we  have  Cush  in 
Isa.  xi.,  ll,but  Ethiopia  in  xviii.,1,  etc. ;  Edom  in  Isa.  xi.,  14  ;  lxiii.,l,but 
Idumea  in  xxxiv.,  .5, 6  ;  Asshur  in  Hos.  xiv.,  4, but  Assyria  elsewhere  in  this 
same  prophet ;  Javan  in  Isa.  Ixvi. ,  1 9,  but  Greece  or  Grecia  in  the  other  proph- 
ets ;  and  so  with  other  words. 


TUFA TMENT  OF  PROPER  NAMES,  ETC.  j  o  9 

Greek;  while  iu  some  few  eases,  e. g., Egypt, Tjn-e,*  etc., both 
modifying  influences  have  been  at  work ;  the  Hebrew  has 
been  replaced  by  the  Greek,  and  this,  again,  has  been  Angli- 
cized in  form.  In  the  instructions  given  to  our  translators  it 
was  so  ordered :  "  The  names  of  the  prophets  and  the  holy 
writers,  with  the  other  names  of  the  text,  to  be  retained  as 
nigh  as  may  be,  according  as  they  were  vulgarly  used." 

With  these  principles  no  fault  can  be  found;  but  the  re- 
sult of  their  application  is  not  always  satisfiictory.  Our 
translators  are  not  uniformly  consistent  with  themselves; 
and,  moreover,  time  has  very  considerably  altered  the  con- 
ditions of  the  problem  as  it  presents  itself  now. 

(1.)  The  first  of  these  principles,  though  it  commends  itself 
to  our  own  age,  was  not  allowed,  to  pass  unquestioned  when 
first  asserted.  At  the  era  of  the  Refoi'mation,  the  persons 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  were  commonly  known  (so 
far  as  they  were  known  at  all)  through  the  Septuagint  and 
Vulgate  forms.  Thus  Ochosias  stood  for  Ahaziah,  Achab  for 
Ahab,  Sobna  for  Shebnah,  Elias  for  Elijah,  Eliseus  for  Elisha, 
Roboam  for  Rehoboam,  Josaphat  for  Jehoshaphat,  Abdias  for 
Obadiah,  and  the  like.  In  Coverdale's  Bible  these  forms  are 
generally  retained ;  but  in  the  later  English  versions  there  is 
a  tendency  to  substitute  the  Hebrew  forms,  or  forms  more 
nearly  approaching  to  them. 

In  the  two  versions  which  held  the  ground  when  our  Au- 
thorized Version  was  set  on  foot — the  Bishops'  Bible  and  the 
Geneva  Bible — this  tendency  had  reached  the  utmost  limit 
which  the  English  language  seemed  to  allow.  In  Miinster's 
Latin  Bible,  indeed,  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  reproduce 
the  Hebrew  forms  with  exactness,  and,  accordingly,  the  names 
of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel  there  appear  as  Jesahiahu, 
Irmeiahu,  and  lechezchel.  This  extreme  point,  however,  was 
never  reached  by  any  of  our  English  translators ;  but  still,  in 

the  Geneva  Bible,  the  names  of  the  patriarchs  are  written 

\ 
*  Yet  "Tyre" and  "Tyrus" are  employed  indifferently,  and  without  any  rule, 
in  the  Old  Testament. 


130    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FEESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

Izhak  and  laakob,  and  in  the  Bishops'  Bible  we  meet  with 
such  forms  as  Amariahu,  Zachaviahu. 

This  tendency  was  not  left  unassailed.  Gregory  Martin,  in 
his  attack  on  the  "  English  Bibles  used  and  authorized  since 
the  time  of  the  schism,"  published  at  Rheims  in  1582,  writes 
as  follows : 

Of  one  thing  we  can  by  no  means  excuse  you,  but  it  must  savor 
vanity  or  novelty,  or  both.  As  when  you  affect  new  strange  words 
which  the  people  are  not  acquainted  withal,  but  it  is  rather  Hebrew 
to  them  than  English  :  fiaXa  atuvwQ  bvofiaZovTEQ,  as  Demosthenes  speak- 
eth,  uttering  with  great  countenance  and  majesty.  "Against  him 
came  up  Nabuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babel,"  2  Par.  xxxvi.,  6,  for  "  Nab- 
uchodonosor,  king  of  Babylon  ;"  "  Saneherib"  for  "  Sennacherib ;" 
"  Michaiah's  prophecy"  for  "  Michaea's  ;"  "  Jehoshaphat's  prayer"  for 
"  Josaphat's ;"  "  Uzza  slain"  for  "  Oza ;"  "  when  Zerubbabel  went  about  • 
to  build  the  Temple"  for  "  Zorobabel ;"  "  remember  what  the  Lord 
did  to  Miriam"  for  "  Marie,"  Deut.  xxxiv. ;  and  in  your  first*  transla- 
tion "  Elisa"  for  "  Elisseus ;"  "  Pekahia"  and  "  Pekah"  for  "  Phaceia" 
and  "  Phacee ;"  "  Uziahu"  for  "  Ozias ;"  "  Thiglath-peleser"  for  "  Teg- 
lath-phalasar ;"  "  Ahaziahu"  for  "  Ochozias ;"  "  Peka,  son  of  Rema- 
liahu,"  for  "  Phacee,  son  of  Romelia."  And  why  say  you  not  as  well 
"  Shelomoh"  for  "  Salomoh,"  and  "  Corcsh"  for  "  Cyrus,"  and  so  alter 
every  word  from  the  known  sound  and  pronunciation  thereof?  Is 
this  to  teach  the  people  when  you  speak  Hebrew  rather  than  English? 
Were  it  goodly  hearing  (think  you)  to  say  for  "Jesus,"  " Jeshuah;" 
and  for  "  Marie,"  his  mother,  "  Miriam ;"  and  for  "  Messias,"  "  Mes- 
siach;"  and  "John,"  "Jachannan;"  and  such-like  monstrous  novel- 
ties ?  which  you  might  as  well  do,  and  the  people  would  understand 
you  as  well,  as  when  your  preachers  say  "  Nabucadnezer,  king  of  Ba- 
bel." 

To  these  charges  Fulke  gives  this  brief  and  sensible  reply : 

Seeing  the  most  of  the  proper  names  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
unknown  to  the  people  before  the  Scriptures  were  read  in  English,  it 
was  best  to  utter  them  according  to  the  truth  of  then-  pronunciation 
in  Hebrew  rather  than  after  the  common  corruption  which  they  had 
received  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  tongues.  But  as  for  those  names 
which  were  known  to  the  people  out  of  the  New  Testament,  as  Jesus, 

*  i.  c.jTheGreatBible,  which  was  the  first  Bible  in  use  after  "the  schism;" 
the  edition  to  which  Martin  refers  is  that  of  1562.  The  two  Bibles  to  which 
Martin's  strictures  mostly  apply  are  the  Genevan  and  the  Bishops',  as  being 
most  commonly  used  when  he  wrote.     See  Fulke's  Defence,  etc.,  p.  67  seq. 


TREATMENT  OF  PROPER  NAMES,  ETC.  131 

John,  Mary,  etc.,  it  had  been  folly  to  have  taught  men  to  sound  them 
otherwise  than  after  the  Greek  declination,  in  which  we  find  them.* 

The  attack,  however,  was  so  far  successful,  that  the  revis- 
ers who  produced  our  Authorized  translation  seem  to  have 
adopted  in  each  case  from  the  current  versions  those  forms 
which  least  offended  the  English  .eye  or  ear,  even  though  far- 
ther removed  from  the  Hebrew.  Thus,  in  the  examples  al- 
ready given,  they  write  Isaac,  Jacob,  in  preference  to  Izhak, 
laakob  of  the  Geneva  Bible,  and  Amariah,  Zachariah  in  pref- 
erence to  Amariahu,  Zachariahu  of  the  Bishops'. 

With  the  general  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament^names 
I  have  no  desire  to  find  fault :  perhaps  the  forms  in  our  En- 
glish Bible  approach  as  nearly  to  the  Hebrew  as  is  desirable. 
But,  when  we  compare  the  New  Testament  with  the  Old, 
some  important  questions  arise. 

In  favor  of  retaining  the  old  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  forms 
in  preference  to  introducing  the  Hebrew,  there  was  this  strong 
argument  —  that  the  same  person  thus  appeared  under  the 
same  name  in  the  New  Testament  as  in  the  Old,  The  En- 
glish reader  did  not  need  to  be  informed  that  Eliseus  was 
the  same  as  Elisha,  Ozias  as  XJzziah,  Salathiel  as  Shealtiel,  etc. 
Now  he  has  not  this  advantage.  Even  supposing  that  the 
identity  of  persons  is  recognized,  much  unconscious  miscon- 
ception still  remains  in  particular  cases.  It  is  very  difficult, 
for  instance,  for  an  English  reader,  who  has  not  read  or 
thought  on  the  subject,  to  realize  the  fact  that  the  Elias  whom 
the  Jews  expected  to  appear  in  Messiah's  days  was  not  some 
weird  mythical  being,  or  some  merely  symbolical  person,  but 
the  veritable  Elijah  who  lived  on  earth,  in  flesh  and  blood,  in 
the  days  of  Ahab.  "Let  us  just  seek  to  realize  to  ourselves," 
says  ArchbisHop  Trench,  "  the  difference  in  the  amount  of 
awakened  attention  among  a  country  congregation  which 
Matt,  xvii.,  10  would  create  if  it  were  read  thus:  'And  his 
disciples  asked  him,  saying.  Why  then  say  the  Scribes  that 

*  Fulke's  Defence  of  the  English  Translations  of  the  Bible,  p.  588  seq. 
(Parker  Society's  edition). 


132    LIQHTFOOT  ON  A  FEESH  EEVISIOX  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

^Elijah  must  first  come?'  as  compared  with  what  it  now  is 
likely  to  create."  And  this  argument  applies,  though  in  a 
less  degree,  to  the  scene  of  the' transfiguration.  It  is  most  im- 
portant, as  the  same  writer  has  observed, to  "keep  vivid  and 
strong  the  relations  between  the  Old  and  New  Testament  in 
the  minds  of  the  great  body  of  English  hearers  and  readers 
of  Scripture."* 

I  imagine  that  few  would  deny  the  advantage  of  substi- 
tuting the  more  familiar  Old  Testament  names  in  such  cases 
for  the  less  familiar  Septuagint  forms  preserved  in  the  New ; 
but  many  more  may  question  whether  such  a  substitution  is 
legitimate,  and  I  venture  therefore  to  add  a  few  words  in  de- 
fence of  this  reform  which  I  should  wish  to  see  introduced. 

If  at  this  point  we  were  to  invoke  the  second  principle 
(which  has  been  mentioned  above  and  will  be  considered  pres- 
ently), that  whenever  a  familiar  English  form  of  a  name  oc- 
curs, this  shall  be  substituted  for  the  original,  e.  g.,  John  for 
loannes,  James  for  lacobos,  Mary  for  Mariam,  this  principle 
alone  would  justify  the  change  which  I  am  advocating.  For, 
to  our  generation  at  least,  the  familiar  English  names  of  the 
Old  Testament  personages  are  Elijah,  Elisha,  Isaiah,  etc.,  and 
therefore,  on  this  ground  alone,  the  Greek  forms  Elias,  Elise- 
ns,  Esaias,  should  give  place  to  them.  In  the  16th  and  17th 
centuries  it  might  be  a  question  between  Esay,  Esaie,  Esaias, 
Isaiah ;  between  Abdy,  Abdias,  Obadiah ;  between  Jeremy, 
Jeremias,  Jeremiah ;  between  Osee,  Oseas,  Osea,  Hosea  (or 
Hoshea) ;  between  Sophony,  Sophonia,  Sophonias,  Zephaniah ; 
between  Aggeus,  Haggeus,  Haggai,  and  the  like;  but  now 
long  familiarity  has  decided  irrevocably  in  favor  of  the  last 
forms  in  each  case,  and  there  is  every  reason  why  the  less  fa- 
miliar modes  of  representing  the  names  should  give  place  to 
the  more  familiar.  But,  quite  independently  of  this  consid- 
eration of  familiarity,  we  should  merely  be  exercising  the  le- 
gitimate functions  of  translators  if  in  most  cases  we  were  to 
return  to  the  Old  Testament  forms ;  for  (with  very  few  ex- 
*  Authorized  Versipn,  p.  66. 


TBEATMEXT  OF  PROFER  NAMES,  ETC.  133 

ceptions)  the  Greek  forms  representUhe  original  names  as 
nearly  as  the  vocables  and  the  genius  of  the  Greek  language 
permit,  and  in  translating  it  is  surely  allowable  to  neglect 
the  purely  Greek  features  in  the  words.  This  applies  esiDe- 
cially  to  terminations,  such  as  Jeremias,  Jonas,  Manasses,  for 
Jeremiah,  Jonah,  Manasseh ;  and,  in  fact,  the  name  Elias  it- 
self is  nothing  more  than  "Elijah"  similarly  formed,  for  the 
Hebrew  word  could  not  have  been  written  otherwise  in  Greek. 
It  applies  also  to  the  change  of  certain  consonants.  Thus  a 
Greek  had  no  choice  but  to  represent  the  sh  sound  by  a  sim- 
ple s.  Like  the  men  of  Ephraim,  the  Greeks  could  not  frame 
to  pronounce  the  word  Shibboleth  right ;  and  it  is  curious  to 
observe  to  Avhat  straits  the  Alexandrian  translator  of  the  nar- 
rative in  the  book  of  Judges  (xii.,  5,  6)  is  driven  in  his  at- 
tempt to  render  the  incident  into  this  language.*  Kemem- 
bering  this,  we  shall  at  once  replace  Cis  (Acts  xiii.,  21)  by 
Kishjf  and  Aser  (Luke  ii.,36;  Rev.  vii.,6)  by  Asher;  while 
the  English  reader  will  at  length  discover  that  the  unfamiliar 
Saron,  connected  with  the  history  of  ^neas  (Acts  ix.,  35),  is 
the  well-known  Sharon  of  Old  Testament  history.  Combin- 
ing this  principle  of  change  with  the  foi-egoing,  we  should  re- 
store Elisha  in  place  of  Eliseus.  For  the  Hebrew  gutturals 
again  the  Greeks  had  no  equivalent,  and  were  obliged  either 
to  omit  them,  or  to  substitute  the  nearest  sound  which  their 
language  afforded.  On  this  principle  they  frequently  repre- 
sented the  final  n  by  an  e  ;J  and  hence  the  forms  Core,  Noe, 
which  therefore  we  should  without  scruple  replace  by  the 
more  familiar  Korah,  Noah.  In  the  middle  of  a  word  it  was 
often  represented  by  a  x,  which  our  Old  Testament  transla- 
tors in  this  and  other  positions  give  an  h  ;  and  thus  there  is 

*  He  can  only  say  fiVov  cfj  ardxvQ  [A  has  tiTrart  Sri  avvGriiio]-  kuI  ov  na- 
TivOvvt  [A  Kai  KaTr]v9vvai^  tov  XaXtjffai  o'vTwg. 

+  It  is  not  easy  to  see  why  oui*  translators  should  hare  written  Cis,  Core, 
rather  than  Kis,  Kore. 

t  The  genealogies  at  the  beginning  of  the  Books  of  Chronicles  in  the  LXX. 
o$er  very  many  instances  of  this  change.  Sometimes  this  final  t  represents 
an  5  or  a  tl. 


134    LIGHTFOOT  ON'  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

no  reason  why  RacAab,  Achaz,  should  stand  in  the  Xew  Tes- 
tament for  Ra/iab,  A//az  in  the  Old.  Again,  the  fact  that  the 
aspirate,  though  pronounced,  was  never  written  in  Greek, 
should  be  taken  into  account,  and  any  divergence  from  the 
Hebrew  form  M'hich  can  be  traced  to  this  cause  might  be 
neglected ;  thus  Agar,  Ezekias,  would  be  rej^laced  by  Hagar, 
Hezekiah,  and  Josaphat,  Roboam,  by  Jehoshaphat,  Rehobo- 
am.*  By  adopting  this  principle  of  neglecting  mere  peculiar- 
ities and  imperfections  of  the  Greek  in  the  representation  of 
the  Hebrew  names,  and  thus  endeavoring  to  reproduce  the 
original  form  which  has  undergone  the  modification,  we  should, 
in  almost  every  important  instance,  bring  the  names  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  into  conformity  with  each  other. 
A  very  few  comparatively  trifling  exceptions  would  still  re- 
main, where  the  Greek  form  can  not  be  so  explained.  These 
might  be  allowed  to  stand;  or,  if  the  identity  of  the  person 
signified  was  beyond  question  (e.g.,  Aram  and  Ram),  the  Old 
Testament  form  might  be  replaced  in  the  text,  and  the  Greek 
form  given  in  the  margin. 

(2.)  The  second  of  the  two  principles  which  were  enunciated 
above  as  guiding  our  English  translators  also  requires  some 
consideration. 

Under  this  head  the  inconsistency  of  our  Authorized  Ver- 
sion will  need  correction,  for  it  is  incapable  of  defense.  If 
the  prophet  was  to  be  called  Oseef  in  the  New  Testament 

*  For  'Paa^  (Heb.  xi.,  31 ;  James  ii. ,  25)  our  translators  have  boldly  writ- 
ten "Rabab."  While  speaking  of  aspirates,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  in  the 
edition  of  1611  the  normal  spelling  in  the  New  Testament  is  "Hierusalem;" 
the  only  exceptions  which  I  have  noticed  being  1  Cor.  xvi.,  3;  Gal.  i.,  17, 
18  ;  ii.,  1 ;  iv.,  25,  26 ;  Heb.  xii.,  22,  and  the  headings  of  some  chapters  (e.  g., 
Acts  xxi. ;  Eev.  xxi.),  where  "Jerusalem"  appears.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
the  Old  Testament  it  is  "Jerusalem,"  though  "Hierusalem"  occurs  in  the 
heading  of  2  Sam.  xiv. 

t  It  may  be  questioned  whether  this  word  should  be  pronounced  as  a  dis- 
syllable, the  double  e  being  regarded  as  an  English  tennination,  as  in  Zebe- 
dee,  Pharisee,  etc. ,  or  as  a  trisyllable,  the  word  being  considered  as  a  repro- 
duction of  the  Greek  'Qtri/e. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  can,  I  think,  be  no  doubt  that  the  modem  fashion 
of  pronouncing  the  final  e  of  Magdalene,  as  though  it  represented  the  i]  of  the 


TREATMENT  OF  PROPER  NAMES,  ETC.  I35 

(Rom.  ix.,  26),  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  have  remain- 
ed Hosea  in  the  Old.  If  the  country  appears  as  Greece  in 
Zechariah  (ix.,  13)  and  in  the  Acts  (xx.,  2),  why  should  it  be 
named  Grecia  in  the  book  of  Daniel  (viii.,  21 ;  x.,  20 ;  xi.,  2)  ? 
If  the  inhabitants  of  this  country  are  Greeks  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, why  should  they  be  Grecians  in  the  Old  (Joel  iil,  6)  ?* 
If  Mark  is  substituted  for  Marcus  in  some  passages  (Acts  xii., 
12, 25  ;  2  Tim.  iv.,  11),  why  should  Marcus  have  been  allowed 
to  stand  in  others  (Col.  iv.,  10;  Philem.  24;  1  Pet.  v.,  13)? 
Xay,  so  far  does  this  inconsistency  go,  that  Jeremy  and  Jere- 
mias  occur  in  the  same  Gospel  (Matt,  ii.,  17 ;  xvi.,  14) ;  Luke 
and  Lucas  in  two  companion  epistles  sent  at  the  same  time, 
from  the  same  place,  and  to  the  same  destination  (Col.  iv.,  14 ; 
Philem.  24) ;  and  Timothy  and  Timotheus  in  the  same  chap- 
ter of  the  same  epistle  (2  Cor.  i.,  1, 19).  In  all  these  cases, 
the  form  which  is  oioio  the  most  familiar  should  be  consist- 
ently adopted.  This  rule  ->^ould  substitute  Jeremiah  for  Jer- 
emy, but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  would  prefer  Mark  to  Marcus. 
At  the  same  time,  both  Cretes  (Acts  ii.,  11)  and  Cretians  (Tit. 
i.,  12)  would  disappear,  and  Cretans  take  their  place. 

original,  is  erroneous.  The  word  is  far  older  than  the  translations  made  from 
the  Greek  in  the  IGth  and  17th  centuries,  and  came  from  the  Latin.  Though 
in  the  A.V.  (1611)  the  spelling  is  always  "Magdalene,"  yet  in  the  earlier  ver- 
sions it  is  indifferently  Magdalen  and  Magdalene.  WiclifFe  writes  it ' '  Maw- 
deleyn" — a  pronunciation  which  has  survived  in  the  names  of  our  colleges  and 
in  the  adjective  "maudlin."  There  is  no  more  reason  for  sounding  the  last 
letter  in  Magdalene  than  in  Urbane  (Kom.  xvi.,  9). 

This  last  word  is  printed  "  Urbane"  in  all  the  early  editions  of  the  A.V. 
which  I  have  consulted  (IGll,  1G12,  1G17,  1629,  1630, 1637).  On  the  other 
hand,  the  earlier  versions,  without  e.xception,  so  fiir  as  I  have  noticed,  have 
"Urban"  or  "  Urbanus."  In  the  Authorized  Version  (1611)  these  final  e's 
were  common ;  thus  we  find  Hebrewe,  Jewe,  Marke,  Romane,  Samaritane,  etc. 

*  In  the  New  Testament  "Grecian"  is  resen'ed  for  ''EXkr]vi.aTi]c,  while 
"  Greek"  repi-esents  "EWijr.  This  distinction  is  good  as  far  as  it  goes  ;  but, 
in  order  to  tonvey  any  idea  to  an  English  reader,  "EXXjjvKrrjjf  should  be  trans- 
lated by  "  Grecian  Jew"  or  by  some  similar  phrase. 

As  "EXXtjv  is  translated  "Gentile"  without  hesitation  elsewhere  (e.g.,  1 
Cor.  X.,  32 ;  xii.,  13),  it  is  strange  that  this  rendering  is  not  adopted  for  'EX- 
Xjjvi'c,  where  it  would  have  avoided  an  apparent  contradiction,  Mark  vii. ,  26, 
"A  Greek,  a  Syrophenician  by  nation." 


136    LIGHTFOOT  ON'  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

This  principle,  if  consistently  carried  out,  Avould  rule  one 
very  important  example.  Familiar  usage,  which  requires  that 
the  name  Jesus  should  be  retained  when  it  designates  the 
most  sacred  Person  of  all,  no  less  imperatively  demands  that 
Joshua  shall  be  substituted  when  the  great  captain  of  Israel 
and  conqueror  of  Palestine  is  intended.  For  the  same  reason, 
we  speak  of  the  patriarch  as  Jacob  and  the  apostle  as  James; 
of  the  sister  of  Moses  as  Miriam,  and  the  mother  of  the  Lord 
as  Mary.  It  so  happens  that  both  the  passages  in  which  the 
name  Jesus  designates  the  Israelite  captain  (Acts  vii.,  45 ; 
Heb.  iv.,  8)  are  more  or  less  obscure  either  from  difficulties  in 
the  context  or  from  defects  of  translation ;  and  the  endless 
confusion  which  is  created  in  the  minds  of  the  uneducated 
by  the  retention  of  this  form  is  a  matter  of  every-day  expe- 
rience. 

This  last  example  leads  me  to  speak  of  another  point. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that,  when  the  same  person  is  in- 
tended, the  same  form  should  be  adopted  throughout.  But 
Avhat  should  be  done  when  the  name  which  has  a  familiar 
English  form  applies  to  unfamiliar  persons?  Thus  the  En- 
glish John  corresponds  to  the  Greek  'Iwaj'?je  or  'Iwc'ti'i'???,  and 
to  the  Hebrew  Jehohanan  or  Johanan  ("jSnin"!  or  ismi).  Are 
we  then,  in  every  case,  to  substitute  John  where  either  the 
Greek  or  the  Hebrew  form  occurs  ?  No  one  would  think  of 
displacing  John  the  Baptist,  or  John  the  son  of  Zebedee,  or 
John  surnamed  Mark.  But  what  are  we  to  do  with  the  Old 
Testament  personages  bearing  this  name  ?  What  with  those 
who  are  mentioned  in  St.Luke's  genealogy,  where  apparent- 
ly the  name  occurs  more  than  once  in  forms  more  or  less  dis- 
guised (iii.,  24  (?),  27,  30)  ?  What  Avith  John  i.,  43  ;  xxi.,  15, 
16, 17,  where  our  English  Version  gives  "Simon,  son  of  Jona," 
but  where  the  true  reading  in  the  original  is  doubtless  'Iwd- 
vov  ?  I  do  not  know  that  any  universal  rule  can  be  laid 
down;  but  pi'obably  the  i)ractice,  adopted  by  our  translators, 
of  reproducing  the  name  when  it  occurs  in  the  Hebrew  form, 
and  translating  it  when  in  the  Greek,  would  be  generally  ap- 


TREATMENT  OF  PROPER  NAMES,  ETC.  I37 

proved.     Yet  perhaps  an  exception  might  be  made  of  John 

i.,  43  ;  xxi.,  15, 16, 17,  where  it  is  advisable  either  in  the  text 

or  in  the  margin  to  show  the  connection  of  form  with  the  Bap- 

iwvd  of  Matt,  xvi.,17.*     Again,  in  the  English  Version  there 

is  the  greatest  confusion  in  the  forms  of  another  name,  Ju- 

dah.,  Judas,  Juda,  Jude.     Thus  the  patriarch  is  called  both 

Juda  2iv\<S.Judah  in  the  same  context  (Heb.  vii.,14;  viii.,  8), 

and  J7<c?as  ^w^Juda  in  parallel  narratives  (Matt,  i.,  2,  3;  Luke 

iii.,  33) ;  and,  again,  the  brother  of  Jesus  is  called  Judas  in 

one  evangelist  (Matt,  xiii.,  55),  and  Juda  in  another  (Mark  vi., 

3).     The  principle  of  familiarity  suggests  Jude  for  the  writer 

of  the  epistle ;  Judah  for  the  patriarch,  and  the  tribe  and 

country  named  from  him ;  and  Judas  for  Iscariot  and  for  the 

other  less   known  persons  bearing  the   name ;  while  Juda, 

w'hich  occurs  for  the  patriarch  or  tribe  (Luke  iii.,  33 ;  Heb. 

vii.,  14 ;  Rev.  v.,  5  ;  vii.,  5)  and  the  country  (Matt,  ii.,  6  ;  Luke 

i.,  39),  as  well  as  for  other  unknown  persons  (Luke  iii.,  26  (?), 

*  This  form  'Imva  may  represent  two  distinct  Hebrew  names :  (1.)  hJI'^, 
"A  dove,"  the  prophet's  name,  Jonah  :  (2.)  "Sni'i, "  The  grace  of  Jehovah," 
Johanan  or  John.  This  last  is  generally  written  'Imavav  or  'Iwdvjyt'Xthe  form 
'lii)dvvr]Q  with  the  double  v  has  inferior  support).  Contracted  it  becomes 
'Iwvav  or  'Iwva,  the  first  a  being  liable  to  be  slurred  over  in  pronunciation, 
because  the  Hebrew  accent  falls  on  the  last  syllable.  For  'Iwvav,  see  1  Chron. 
xii.,  12  (A,  Iwav  X);  xxvi.,  3  (A);  Neh.  vi.,  18  (B) ;  Ezra  x.,  G  (X  corr. 
from  Iwavflj');  1  Esdr.  ix.,  1  (B);  Luke  iii.,  27  (v.  1.);  iii.,  30  (v.  1.);  for 
'lu}va,  2  Kings  xxv.,  23  (B) ;  Luke  iii.,  30  (v.  1.).  Thus  the  vVoq  'Iwdvov  of 
St.  John  is  equivalent  to  the  Bapmva  of  St. Matthew.  The  longer  form  of 
the  name  of  St.Peter's  father  was  presen-ed  also  in  the  Gospel  of  the  He- 
brews, as  we  learn  from  a  marginal  note  in  an  early  cursive  MS.  (see  Tisch- 
endiOYi,  Notit.  Cod.  Sin.,  p.  58)  on  Matt,  xvi.,  17,  'BapuDva  to  'lovSaiKov  vlk 
'loudvvov;  and  in  an  extant  fragment  inserted  in  the  Latin  translation  of  Ori- 
gen,  in  Matt,  xix.,  19  (iii.,  p.  G71  seq.,  ed.  Delarue),  but  omitted  in  the  Greek, 
we  read  "Simon  fill  Joanne,  facilius  est  camelum,  etc."  From  not  under- 
standing that  the  two  are  forms  of  the  same  name,  some  harmonizer  devised 
the  statement  which'  we  find  in  a  list  of  apostles  preserved  in  the  Paris  MSS. 
Reg.  1789, 102G  (quoted  by  Cotelier,  Patr.  Apost.,  i.,  p.  27.'>),  Utrpoc  km  ''Av~ 
dpeag  dStX(poi,  Ik  Trarpog  'Iwva,  nrjrpbg  'iwavva,  or,  as  it  is  otherwise  read, 
(K  TtarpoQ  'Iwdvvov,  lirjrpbg  'loii'dg.  Our  Lord  seems  to  allude  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  in  Matt,  xvi.,  17," Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Bar  Jona  (Son 
of  the  Grace  of  God),  for  flesh  and  blood  did  not  reveal  it  unto  thee,  but  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven."  There  is  probably  a  similar  allusion  in  all  the 
passages  in  St.  John. 


138    LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

30),  ought  to  disappear  wholly.  And,  so  far  as  regards  Ju- 
dah  and  Judas,  it  would  be  well  to  follow  this  principle ;  but 
when  the  name  is  used  of  the  author  of  the  epistle,  though 
Jude  might  (if  it  were  thought  fit)  be  retained  in  the  title, 
yet  Judas  should  be  substituted  for  Jude  in  the  opening  verse, 
so  as  not  to  preclude  the  identification  of  this  person  with 
the  Lord's  brother  (which  is  highly  probable),  or  again  with 
his  namesake  in  St.  Luke's  lists  of  the  apostles  (which  has 
commended  itself  to  many). 

An  error  greater  than  any  hitherto  mentioned  is  the  ren- 
dering of  the  female  name  Euodia  {j^holiav,  Phil,  iv.,  2)  by  the 
masculine  Euodias  ;*  while  conversely  it  seems  probable  that 
we  should  render  the  name  'louWa^,  one  of  St.Paul's  kinsfolk, 
who  was  "noted  among  the  apostles"  (Rom.  xvi.,*/),  by  Junias 
{i.e.,  Junianus),  not  Junia.f 

Whether,  in  certain  cases,  a  name  should  be  retained  or 
translated,  will  be  a  matter  of  question ;  but  no  defense  can 
be  ofiered  for  the  inconsistency  of  retaining  "  Areopagus"  in 
Acts  xvii.,  19,  and  rendering  it  "Mars'  hill"  three  verses  be- 
low. Nor,  again,  is  there  any  reason  why  Kpariov  tottoq  should 
be  translated  "  A  (or  the)  place  of  a  skull"  in  three  gospels 
(Matt,  xxvii.,  33  ;  Mark  xv.,  22  ;  John  xix.,  17),  and  6  tottoq  6 
KaXovfisvog  Kpaviop, "  The  place  which  is  called  Calvary"  in  the 
fourth  (Luke  xxiii.,  33). f  In  all  places  where  it  is  possible, 
the  practice  of  I'endering  seems  to  be  preferable;  and  by  the 
"  Three  Taverns"  a  fresh  .touch  is  added  to  the  picture  of  St. 
Paul's  journey  (Acts  xxviii.,15),  Avhich  would  have  been  yet 
more  vivid  if  consistently  therewith  our  translators  had  ren- 
dered 'Atttt/ou  $0^0*/, "The  Market  of  Appius,"as  it  stands  in 
the  Geneva  Version.^ 

*  See  above,  p.  114. 

t  The  word  "  Jewrj',"  which  was  common  in  the  older  versions  for  Judah 
or  Judaea,  has  almost  disappeared  in  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, but  still  remains  in  two  passages  (Luke  xxiii.,  5  ;  John  vii. ,  1).  In 
Dan.  v.,  13,  "  The  children  of  the  captivity  of  Judah,  whom  the  king  my  fa- 
ther brought  out  of  Jewrj', "  the  same  word  in  the  original  is  rendered  both 
"  Judah"  and  "  Jewry." 

t  Another  fault  is  the  rendering  both  <Po7vtX,  the  haven  of  Crete  (Acts 


TREA  TMENT  OF  PR  OPER  NAMES,  ETC.  139 

The  question  between  reproduction  and  translation  be- 
comes more  important  when  we  turn  from  proper  names  to 
official  titles  and  technical  terms,  such  as  weights,  measures, 
and  the  like.  In  the  Old  Testament  our  translators  have  fre- 
quently adopted  the  former  principle,  e.  g.^  bath,  cor,  ephah, 
etc. ;  in  the  New  they  almost  universally  adhere  to  the  latter. 

In  a  version  which  aims  at  being  pojaular  rather  than  lit- 
erary, the  latter  course  seems  to  be  amply  justified.*  Yet, 
when  the  principle  is  conceded,  the  application  is  full  of  diffi- 
culty. The  choice  very  often  lies  between  giving  a  general 
expression  which  conveys  no  very  definite  idea,  and  adopting 
some  technical  term  which  is  j^recise  enough  to  the  English 
ear,  but  suggests  a  conception  more  or  less  at  variance  with 
the  original. 

How,  for  instance,  are  we  to  treat  avdvTrarog  ?  Wicliffe  re- 
produced the  Latin  "proconsul."  The  earlier  versions  of  the 
Reformed  Church  generally  give  "  ruler  of  the  county,"  "  rul- 
er." The  Authorized  Version  adopts  the  rendering  of  the  Ge- 
neva and  Bishops'  Bibles,"deputy  of  the  country,"  "deputy." 
This  last  has  now  nothing  to  recommend  it.     In  the  16th 

xxvii.,  12),  and  ^otviKt],  the  country  of  Phoenicia  (Acts  xi.,  19  ;  xv.,  3),  bj 
the  same  word  "  Phenice"  (after  the  Bishops'  and  Geneva  Bibles),  while  con- 
versely <PotviKr]  has  two  different  renderings,  "Phenice"  (xi.,  19  ;  xv.,  3)  and 
"Phenicia"  (xxi.,  2).  The  older  versions  generally,  as  late  as  the  Great 
Bible,  have  "  Phenices"  or  "  Phenyces"  for  both  words.  Did  our  translators 
intend  the  final  e  of  "  Phenice,"  when  it  represents  Phoenix,  to  be  mute,  on 
the  analogy  of  Beatrix,  Beatrice? 

*  At  all  events,  whichever  course  is  adopted,  it  should  be  carried  out  con- 
sistently. Thus  there  is  no  reason  why  'Pa(3j3l  should  be  sometimes  repro- 
duced in  the  English  Version  (Matt,  xxiii.,  7,  8 ;  John  i.,  39,  50 ;  iii.,  2,  26  ; 
vi.,  25)  and  sometimes  rendered  "Master"  (Matt,  xxvi.,  25,  49  ;  Mark  ix., 
5  ;  xi.,  21 ;  xiv.,  45  ;  John  iv.,  31 ;  ix.,  2  ;  xi.,  8),  or  in  like  manner  why 
'PaftlSovvi,  which  only  occurs  twice,  should  be  once  translated  "  Lord"  (Mark 
X.,  51)  and  once  retained  (John  xx.,  IG). 

In  the  same  way  the  word  vdaxa,  which  is  generally  rendered  "  Passover," 
is  represented  once,  and  only  once,  by  "Easter"  (Acts  xii.,  4).  This  is  a 
remnant  of  the  earlier  versions  in  which  irdaxa  is  commonly  translated  so, 
even  in  such  passages  as  Lukexxii.,  1,  >)  iopn)  tuiv  d^^viiwv  t)  Xeyofiivij  Trc'iaxn, 
"which  is  called  Easter,"  where,  however,  the  Geneva  and  Bishops'  Bibles 
substitute  "Passover." 


140    LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  EEVISIOX  OF  THE  X.  TEST. 

century,  when  the  lord  lieutenant  of  Ireland  was  styled  dep- 
uty, the  word  would  convey  a  sufficiently  precise  idea;  but 
now  it  suggests  a  wrong  conception,  if  it  suggests  any  at  all. 
"What  sense,  for  instance,  can  an  English  reader  attach  to  the 
words  "  The  law  is  open,  and  there  are  deputies'''  (Acts  xix., 
38),  which  in  the  Authorized  Version  are  given  as  the  ren- 
dering of  ayopatoi  ctyojrai*  Ka'i  ai-du-aroi  eiaiv?  The  tei'ni  which 
in  the  19th  century  corresponds  most  nearly  to  the  deputy 
of  16th  is  lieutenant  governor,  and  indeed  the  Geneva  Testa- 
ment did  in  one  passage  (Acts  xviii.,12)  translate  avQviraTOQ 
by  "lieutenant  of  the  country,"  but  this  rendering  was  drop- 
ped in  the  Geneva  Bible,  and  not  taken  up  again.  To  this 
precise  language,  however,  exception  might  be  taken  ;  and  if 
so,  we  should  be  obliged  to  fall  back  on  some  general  terra, 
such  as  " governor,"  "chief  magistrate,"  or  the  like.  With 
the  rendering  of  ypa^/xarfur,  "  town  clerk,"  in  Acts  xix.,  35, 1 
should  not  be  disposed  to  find  fault,  for  it  is  difficult  to  sug- 
gest a  more  exact  equivalent.  '  In  the  context  of  the  same 
passage,  however  (ver.  31),  an  English  reader  would  not  un- 
derstand that  the  '■^chiefs  of  Asia"  were  officers  appointed  to 
preside  at  the  festivals,  and  perhaps  ^''presidents  of  Asia" 
might  be  substituted  with  advantage  (for  the  word  occurs  in 
the  English  Bible),  though  it  is  impossible  entirely  to  remove 
an  obscurity  which  exists  also  in  the  Greek  'A<Tiapx»?e.  In 
Rom.  xvi.,  23,  the  substitution  of"  treasurer"  for  "chamber- 
lain" in  the  rendering  of  6  oIkovojioq  rijc  TroXewc  would  be  an  im- 
provement ;f  for  "  treasurer,"  again,  is  a  good  Biblical  word, 
and  we  do  not  use  "  chamberlain"  to  describe  such  an  officer 
as  is  here  intended.^ 

*  Why  the  slovenly  translation,  "the  law  is  open,"  should  have  been  al- 
lowed to  remain,  it  is  diflScult  to  see.  In  the  margin  our  translators  suggest 
"  the  court  days  are  kept."  They  would  have  earned  our  gratitude  if  in  this 
and  other  cases  they  had  acted  with  more  boldness,  and  placed  in  the  text 
the  more  correct  renderings  which  they  have  been  content  to  suggest  in  the 
margin. 

t  Wicliffe  has  "treasurer,"  the  Rheims  Version  "cofferer,"  while  the  ver- 
sions of  the  Eeformed  Church  render  it  "chamberlain." 

t  Perhaps  I  ought  to  except  the  Chamberlain  of  the  City  of  London. 


TREATMENT  OF  PROPER  NAMES,  ETC.  141 

On  the  whole,  however,  the  rendering  of  official  titles  in 
our  version  is  fairly  adequate,  and  can  not  be  much  improved. 
If  there  is  occasionally  some  inconsistency  and  want  of  meth- 
od, as,  for  instance,  when  x'^'«PXoe  ^^  translated  "  chief  cap- 
tain," and  EKaTovrapxog  reproduced  as  "  centurion"  in  the  same 
context*  (Acts  xxi.,  31,  32  ;  xxii.,  24-26;  xxiii.,  17-23),  still 
these  renderings  have  established  a  prescriptive  right,  and  an 
adequate  reason  must  be  shown  for  disturbing  them.  In  Acts 
xvi,,  35,  38,  paficoijxoi,  "  lictors,"  is  well  rendered  "  sergeants  ;" 
and  in  xxviii.,  16,  the  translation  o{  arpaTowecapxvSi  the2)rcpfec- 
tics  2^'r(Ktorio,  as  "  captain  of  the  guard,"  is  a  great  improve- 
ment oh  the  less  precise  renderings  of  the  earlier  versions ; 
"  chief  captain  of  the  host"  (Tyndale,  Great  Bible,  Bishops'), 
"chief  captain"  (Coverdale), "general  captain"  (Geneva);  and, 
with  the  addition  of  one  word,  might  very  well  stand,"  chief 
captain  (or  captain  general)  of  the  guard."  On  the  other 
hand,  in  Mark  vi.,  27,  <r7r£couXarwp,  which  signifies  "a  soldier 
of  the  guard,"  should  not  have  been  rendered  "  executioner" 
(in  the  earlier  versions  it  is  "hangman"),  for  this  term  de- 
scribes a  mere  accident  of  his  office. 

But  if  official  titles  are,  on  the  whole,  fairly  rendered,  this 
is  not  the  case  with  another  class  of  technical  terras  denoting 
coins,  weights,  and  measures. 

As  regards  coins,  the  smaller  pieces  are  more  adequately 
translated  than  the  larger.  No  better  rendering  than  "  mite" 
is  possible  for  \nr-6v,  or  than  "  farthing"  for  Kocpav-r}c.  "  quad- 
rans ;"  and  the  relation  of  the  two  coins  is  thus  preserved 
(Mark  xii.,  42,  Xeiv-a  cuo,  0  kariv  Kocpamjo).  But  from  this  point 
the  inadequacy  and  inconsistency  begin.  Why  atraapioy,  the 
late  Greek  diminutive  used  for  the  as,  of  which,  therefore,  the 
KocpatTEg  is  a  fourth  part,  should  still  be  translated  a,farthmg\ 
(which  elsewhere  represents  Kocpdy-i]c)  rather  than  a  j^^^iny, 

*  Some  of  the  older  rersions  translate  the  words  "upper"  or  "high  cap- 
tain," and  "under  captain,"  respectively. 

t  In  Matt.  X.,  29,  the  Geneva  Testament  (1557)  had  rendered  aaaapiov  by 
a  halfpenny  (as  Wicliffe),  and  similarly  cvo  asaapia,  in  Luke  xii.,  6,  by  a 
penny.     The  rest  give  it  a  farthing,  as  in  the  A.  V. 


142    LIQHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

it  is  difficult  to  see  (Matt,  x.,  29 ;  Luke  xii.,  6).  And,  as  we 
advance  in  the  scale,  the  disproj^ortion  between  the  value  of 
the  original  coin  and  the  English  substitute  increases.  Thus 
the  denarms,  a  silver  jDiece  of  the  value  originally  of  ten  and 
afterward  of  sixteen  ases,  is  always  rendered  a  penny.  Its 
absolute  value,  as  so  much  weight  in  metal,  is  as  nearly  as 
possible  the  same  as  the  French  franc.  Its  relative  value  as 
a  purchasing  power,  in  an  age  and  a  country  where  provi- 
sions were  much  cheaper,  w^as  considerably  more.  Now  it 
so  happens  that  in  almost  every  case  where  the  word  crjvapioy 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament  it  is  connected  Avith  the  idea 
of  a  liberal  or  large  amount,  and  yet  in  these  passages  the  En- 
glish rendering  names  a  sum  which  is  absurdly  small.  Thus 
the  Good  Samaritan,  whose  generosity  is  intended  to  ajjpear 
throughout,  on  leaving,  takes  out  "two  pence,"  and  gives 
them  to  the  innkeeper  to  supply  the  farther  wants  of  the 
wounded  man.  Thus,  again,  the  owner  of  the  vineyard,  whose 
liberality  is  contrasted  with  the  niggardly,  envious  spirit,  the 
"  evil  eye"  of  others,  gives,  as  a  day's  wages,  a  penny  to  each 
man.  It  is  unnecessary  to  ask  what  impression  the  mention 
of  this  sum  will  leave  on  the  minds  of  an  uneducated  j^easant 
or  shopkeeper  of  the  present  day.  Even  at  the  time  when 
our  version  was  made,  and  when  wages  were  lower,  it  must 
have  seemed  wholly  inadequate.*  The  inadequacy  again  ap- 
l^ears,  though  not  so  prominently,  in  the  two  hundred  pence, 
the  sum  named  as  insufficient  to  supply  bread  lo  the  five 
thousand  (Mark  vi.,  37;  John  vi.,  7),  and  similarly  in  other 
cases  {e.  g.,  Mark  xiv.,  5 ;  John  xii.,  5  ;  Luke  vii.,  41).  Lastly, 
in  the  Book  of  the  Revelation  (vi.,  6),  the  announcement, 
which  in  the  original  implies  famine  prices,  is  rendered  in  our 

*  The  rendering  "a  penny"  was  probably  handed  down  in  this  familiar 
parable  from  the  time  when  this  sum  would  be  no  inadequate  remuneration 
for  a  day's  labor ;  but  long  before  the  Versions  of  the  Refoiined  Church  were 
made,  this  had  ceased  to  be  the  case.  Even  in  Henry  the  Vlllth's  reign  a 
laborer  earned  from  sixpence  to  eightpence  a  day  (Froude,  i.,  p.  29  seq.),  . 
though  after  the  Restoration  the  rate  of  wages  does  not  seem  to  have  ad- 
vanced much  upon  this  amount  (see  Macaulay,  i  ,  p.  413). 


TREATMENT  OF  PROPER  NAMES,  ETC.  143 

English  Version  "A  measure  of  wheat  for  a  penny,  and  three 
measures  of  barley  for  a  penny."  The  fact  is  that  the  word 
Xoi-vi^t  here  translated  "  measure,"  falls  below  the  amount  of 
a  quart,  while  the  word  Ir^vapiov,  here  translated  "  a  penny," 
approaches  toward  the  value  of  a  shilling.  To  the  English 
reader  the  words  must  convey  the  idea  of  enormous  plenty.* 
Another  word,  drachma,  occurs  in  the  parable  of  the  lost 
money  in  St,  Luke  xv.,  8,  9,  where  it  is  translated  pifece  of  sil- 
ver. Yet  the  Greek  drachma  is  so  nearly  equal  in  value  to 
the  Roman  denarius,  that  it  may  be  questioned  whether  the 
same  coin  is  not  meant  by  both  terms  ;f  and,if  j^i'ece  of  silver 
or  silver  piece  is  a  reasonable  translation  of  drachma,  it  might 
very  well  be  emi^loyed  to  render  denarius.  Again,  in  the  in- 
cident relating  to  the  tribute-money  (Matt,  xvii.,  24  seq.), 
mention  is  made  of  two  different  coins  or  sums  of  money,  the 
didrachma  and  the  stater,  the  latter  being  double  of  the  for- 
mer ;  and  this  relation  of  value  is  important,  and  should  have 
been  preserved  if  possible,  because  it  explains  our  Lord's 
words,  "Take  it  (the  stater),  and  give  unto  them /or  me  and 
for  thee.''''  In  our  version,  hov^^ever,  didrachma  is  rendered 
"  tribute-money,  tribute,"  and  stater  "  a  piece  of  money."  Of 
larger  amounts,  rtiina  (juvd)  is  translated  a  "  pound"  in  one 
parable  (Luke  xix.,13),;j:  while  in  two  others  (Matt,  xviii.,  24 
seq. ;  xxv.,14  seq.)  talent  is  allowed  to  stand.  From  the  lat- 
ter of  these  comes  the  secondary  metaphorical  sense  of  the 

*  A  "  measure"  in  some  parts  of  England  is  or  was  equivalent  to  a  Win- 
chester bushel.  At  all  events,  it  would  suggest  a  large  rather  than  a  small 
quantity. 

+  SeePlin.,iSr.S'.,xxi.,109:  "  Drachma  Attica  denarii  argentei  habet  pon- 
dus. "  This  parable  does  not  occur  in  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark,  and  must 
have  been  derived  by  St. Luke  from  some  independent  source.  Hence,  as  ad- 
dressing Greek  readers  chiefly,  he  would  not  unnaturally  name  a  Greek  coin 
in  preference.  Similarly  it  was  seen  above  (p.  102)  that  dptivrj  is  confined  to 
St.  Luke  in  that  portion  of  his  narrative  which  does  not  run  parallel  with  the 
other  two  evangelists. 

+  The  Wicliffite  Versions  have  "  besaunt"  for  /ivd  here;  but  the  careless- 
ness with  which  the  word  is  used  appears  from  the  fact  that  they  employ  it 
also  to  render  drachma  on  the  one  hand  (Luke  xv.,  8),  and  talentum  on  the 
other  (Matt,  xviii.,  24  I  v.  1.]  ;  xxv.,  16). 

N 


144    LIGHTFOOT  OJf  A  FBESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

word  "  talent,"  which  has  entirely  superseded  the  literal  mean- 
ing in  common  language. 

The  treatment  of  measures,  again,  is  extremely  loose.  The 
fXETpriTtjc,  indeed,  is  fiiirly  rendered  "  firkin"  in  Jolm  ii.,  6  ;  and 
the  modiiis  appears  as  "bushel"  (Matt,  v.,  15;  Mark  iv.,21; 
Luke  xi.,  33),  where  the  English  measure,  though  greatly  in 
excess  of  the  Latin,  which  is  about  a  peck,  may  neverthe- 
less remain  undisturbed,  since  nothing  depends  on  exactness. 
With  these  exceptions,  the  one  word  "  measure"  is  made  to 
do  duty  for  all  the  terms  which  occur  in  the  original.  Thus, 
in  Kev.  vi.,  6,  already  quoted,  it  stands  for  a  xoivi^^  something 
under  a  quart ;  and  in  other  passages  it  represents  not  less 
than  three  Hebrew  measures,  the  auTov,  or  seah  (Matt,  xiii., 
33  ;  Luke  xiii.,  21),  the  /3aroc,  the  bath,  or  ephah,  and  the  k6- 
poc,  the  cor  or  homer  (both  in  Luke  xvi.,  6,  7),  though  the 
seah  is  one  third  of  the  bath,  and  the  bath  one  tenth  of  the 
cor.  In  the  former  of  these  two  passages  from  the  Gospels 
accuracy  is  unimportant,  for  the  "three  measures  of  meal"  in 
the  parable  will  tell  their  tale  equally,  whatever  may  be  the 
contents  of  the  measure ;  though  even  here  we  may  regret 
that  our  translators  deserted  the  more  precise  "peck,"  which 
they  found  in  some  of  the  older  versions.  But  in  Luke  xvi., 
6,  V,  where  the  bath  and  the  cor  are  mentioned  in  the  same 
context,  they  should  certainly  be  distinguished.  The  Kopoi 
aiTov  might  very  well  be  rendered  "  quarters  of  wheat"  with 
Tyndale  and  several  of  the  older  versions.  For  the  /3arot  i\a- 
iov  it  is  more  diificult  to  find  an  equivalent :  Wiclifie  renders 
fiarove  by  "  barrels ;"  the  Rheims  Version  by  "  pipes."  In  Rev. 
vi.,  6,  it  is  still  more  important  to  aim  at  precision,  because 
the  extremity  of  the  famine  only  appears  when  the  proper  re- 
lation between  the  measure  and  the  price  is  preserved.  Here 
Xoivi^  might  very  well  be  translated  "  a  quart." 

§^. 
This  discussion  has  been  occupied  hitherto  with  questions 
afiecting  the  correctness  of  our  version  as  representing  the 


ARCHAISMS,  DEFECTS  IN  THE  ENGLISH,  ETC,  145 

Greek.  It  remains  to  consider  the  English  in  itself,  as  a  lit- 
erary production  rather  than  as  a  translation,  and  to  ask  how 
far  it  is  capable  of  amendment  from  this  point  of  view. 

And  here  I  certainly  am  not  disposed  to  dissent  from  the 
universal  verdict,  in  which  those  least  disposed  to  stubborn 
conservatism  have  most  heartily  concurred,  and  which  has 
been  reasserted  only  the  more  emphatically  since  the  ques- 
tion of  revision  was  started ;  but  those  who,  having  studied 
our  English  Version  most  carefully,  and  therefore  have  en- 
tered most  fully  into  its  singular  merits,  will  be  the  least  dis- 
posed to  deny  that  here  and  there  the  reviser's  hand  may  be 
employed  with  advantage. 

Under  this  head  the  archaisms  demand  to  be  considered 
first.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  feeling  in  generations 
past,  there  is  no  disposition  in  the  present  age  to  alter  the 
character  of  our  version.  The  stately  rhythm  and  the  archa- 
ic coloring  are  alike  sacred  in  the  eyes  of  all  English-speak- 
ing peoples.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind 
that  our  version  addresses  itself  not  to  archa3ologists  and  crit- 
ics, but  to  plain  folk;  and  these  two  considerations  combined 
should  guide  the  pen  of  the  reviser.  So  long  as  an  archaism 
is  intelligible,  let  it  by  all  means  be  retained.  If  it  is  mis- 
leadmg,  or  ambiguous,  or  inarticulate,  the  time  for  removing 
it  has  come. 

As  examples  of  innocent  archaisms  we  might  quote  "  be- 
wray," "despite,"  "list,"  "strait,"  "travail,"  "twain,"  and 
hundreds  of  others.  Whether  it  would  be  necessary  to  wring 
the  heart  of  the  archa3ologist  by  removing  "  all  to  brake"  and 
"  earing,"  we  need  not  stop  to  consider,  as  they  do  not  occur 
in  the  New  Testament. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  I  were  asked  to  point  out  a  guilty 
archaism,  I  should  lay  my  finger  at  once  on  the  translation 
of  nepifiv^v  in  Matt,  vi.,  25,  31,  34,  p)  fiepifxvdrE  rjj  \pv\^  vfxQv  ri 
(pdyT}Ti,  '^Ta/ce  no  thought  for  your  life,  what  ye  shall  eat;"  /i?) 
HEptfivri<TriTe  Xiyovreg  ri  ^ayw^ei^,  "7h7ve  no  thought,  saying  What 
shall  we  eat?"  p)  /icpifivljcn^Ts  dg  njv  aiipioy,  '"''Take  no  thought 


146    LIOHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISIOX  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

for  the  morrow."  I  have  heard  of  a  political  economist  al- 
leging this  passage  as  an  objection  to  the  moral  teaching  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  on  the  ground  that  it  encouraged, 
nay,  commanded  a  reckless  neglect  of  the  future.  I  have 
known  of  cases  in  which  scruj)ulous  consciences  have  been 
troubled  by  language  seeming  to  condemn  their  most  reason- 
able acts  of  care  and  forethought ;  of  others  in  which  relig- 
ious persons  have  been  misled  by  this  paramount  authority 
(as  it  seemed  to  be)  into  a  systematic  improvidence.  A 
knowledge  of  the  Greek  would  have  shown  that  it  is  not  rea- 
sonable forethought,  but  distress  and  anxiety  about  the  fu- 
ture, which  our  Lord  forbids ;  for  this,  and  not  less  than  this, 
is  the  force  of  fxipijiva.^  as  may  be  seen  from  such  passages  as 
1  Pet.  v.,  7,  iraffav  rijy  fxepifiyai'  vjiwy  iTripi\pafreQ  lir  avroy,  art 
avTu  fiiXei  irepl  vfiwy,  where  the  distinction  of  fiipifiya  and  fiiXsip 
is  significant,  though  effaced  in  our  English  Version,  "  Cast- 
ing all  your  care  upon  him,  for  he  careth  for  you."  A  study 
of  English  archaisms,  again,  would  have  taught  that  our  trans- 
lators did  not  intend  what  they  seem  to  say,  for  to  "  take 
thought"  in  the  old  language  meant  to  distress  or  trouble 
one's  self.*  But  the  great  mass  of  people  have  neither  the 
time  nor  the  opportunity,  even  if  they  had  the  capacity,  for 
such  investigations.  This  archaism,  therefore,  is  one  which, 
at  all  hazards,  should  disappear  in  any  revision  of  the  En- 
glish Bible.  For  "take  no  thought"  some  have  suggested 
"^e  not  careful."  But  this,  though  an  improvement,  is  very 
far  from  adequate.  For  carefulness,  though  in  the  16th  and 
nth  centuries  it  might  be  a  term  of  reproof,f  in  the  modern 

*  e.  g.,1  Sam.  ix.,  5,  "  Corae,  and  let  us  return,  lest  my  father  ....  take 
thought  for  us,"  where  the  Hebrew  verb  is  3X1,  which  Geseiiius  renders  sol- 
Ucitusfuit,  anxie  timuit.  "To  die  of  thought"  in  the  old  language  was  to 
die  heart-broken.  On  this  archaism,  see  Trench,  Authorized  Version,  p.  37 ; 
Wright,  Bible  Word-Book,  s.  v. 

t  In  fact,  it  is  used  more  than  once  to  translate  this  very  word  ixepi/iva ; 
e.g.,  1  Cor.  vii.,  32,  "I  would  have  you  without  carefulness,"  i.  e.,  anxiety 
{9i\u)  v/iac  afitpifxvovg  tlvai) ;  Phil.  iv. ,  6, "  Be  careful  for  nothing"  (jMr/Stv 

flipiflVCLTt). 

Latimer,  Serm.,  p.  400  (quoted  in  Wright's  Bible  Word-Book,  s.  v.),  speaks 


ARCHAISMS,  DEFECTS  IN  THE  ENGLISH,  ETC.  147 

language  almost  always  implies  commendation.  In  fact,  it 
is  an  archaism  open  to  the  same  misapprehension,  though  not 
to  the  same  degree,  as  "take  no  thought."  "Be  not  anxious" 
or  "  be  not  troubled"  would  adequately  express  the  original. 
The  word  "  anxious,"  it  is  true,  does  not  occur  in  our  English 
Bible,  but  this  is  one  of  those  rare  instances  where  our  new 
revisers  might  well  assume  the  liberty,  which  the  authors  of 
the  Received  Version  certainly  claimed  and  exercised  before 
them,  of  introducing  a  new  word  where  the  language  has 
shifted  and  no  old  word  conveys  the  exact  meaning. 

But,  though  "  take  no  thought"  is  the  worst  offender  of  all, 
yet  other  archaisms  might  with  advantage  be  removed.  We 
may  suspect  that  many  an  Englishman,  when  he  hears  of 
Zacharias  "  asking  for  a  tcriting  table  (Luke  i.,  63),"  conceives 
a  notion  very  different  from  the  evangelist's  own  meaning. 
"We  have  heard  how  the  inquiring  school-boy  has  been  per- 
plexed at  reading  that  St.  Paul  and  his  companions  '■'' fetched 
a  compass^''  when  they  set  sail  from  Syracuse  (Acts  xxviii., 
13),  not  being  able  to  reconcile  this  statement  with  the  date 
given  for  the  invention  of  this  instrument.  We  can  well  im- 
agine that  not  a  few  members  of  an  average  congregation, 
when  the  incident  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth  is  read,  and 
they  hear  that  the  book,  Avhen  closed,  is  handed  "  to  the  min- 
ister'^  (Luke  iv.,  20),  do  not  carry  away  quite  the  correct  idea 
of  the  person  intended  by  this  expression.  We  must  have 
misgivings  whether  our  Lord's  injunction  to  the  disciples  to 
"  take  no  scri^f^  with  them,  or  St.  Luke's  statement  that  the 
apostle's  company  "  took  up  their  carriages  and  went  up  to 
Jerusalem"  (Acts  xxi.,lo),  are  universally  understood.  We 
may  feel  quite  certain  that  the  great  majority  of  readers  do 
not  realize  the  fact  (for  how  should  they  ?)  that  by  the  high- 
est and  the  lowest  rooms  in  the  parable  are  meant  merely 
X\ie  places  or  seats*  at  the  top  or  bottom  of  the  same  table, 

of  "this  wicked  carefulness,"  an  expression  which  in  the  modem  language 
would  be  a  contradiction  in  terms. 
*  Again,  in  1  Cor.  xiv.,  16, "He  that  occupieth  the  room  of  the  unlearned," 


148    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

and  that  therefore  the  invitation  to  "  go  up  higher"  does  not 
imply  mounting  a  staircase  to  a  more  dignified  reception- 
room  in  the  uj^per  story.  We  find  that  even  a  scholarly  di- 
vine* seems  to  infer  from  St. Paul's  language  that  (l  Tim.  v.,  4) 
the  duty  incumbent  not  only  on  children,  but  even  on  Jiejj/i- 
ews,  of  providing  for  their  aged  relations ;  and  finding  this, 
we  can  hardly  expect  illiterate  persons  to  know  that  in  the 
old  language  nephew  signifies  grandchild. 

Among  these  misleading  archaisms  the  word  coast  for  "bor- 
der" or  "  region"  is  perhaps  the  most  frequent.  It  would  be 
unreasonable  to  expect  the  English  reader  to  understand  that 
when  St.  Paul  "  passes  through  the  upper  coasts'''  {to.  ai'w-epi- 
Kci  fjiipr))  on  his  way  to  Ephesus  (Acts  xix.,  1),  he  does  in  fact 
traverse  the  high  land  which  lies  in  the  interior  of  Asia  Mi- 
nor. Again,  in  the  Gospels,  when  he  reads  of  our  Lord  visit- 
ing "  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon"  (Matt,  xv.,  21 ;  Mark  vii., 
31),  he  naturally  thinks  of  the  sea-board,  knowing  these  to 
be  maritime  cities,  whereas  the  word  in  one  passage  stands 
for  ju£p77,  "  parts,"  and  in  the  other  for  opm, "  borders,"  and  the 
circumstances  suggest  rather  the  eastern  than  the  western 
frontier  of  the  region.  And  perhaps  also  his  notions  of  the 
geography  of  Palestine  may  be  utterly  confused  by  reading 
that  Capernaum  is  situated  "  upon  the  sea-coast"  (Matt,  iv., 
13). 

Then,  again,  how  is  such  a  person  to  know  that  when  St. 
Paul  condemns  "  debate"  together  with  envy,  wrath,  murder, 
and  the  like  (Rom.  i.,  29  ;  2  Cor.  xii.,  20),  he  denounces  not  dis- 
cussion, but  contention,  strife  (tptc) ;  or  that  when  he  says,"If 
any  man  have  a  quarrel  against  any"  (Col.  iii.,13)  he  means 
a  complaint  (querela),  the  original  being  t'xj?  fiofi<p{iJ';  or  that, 
when  St.  James  writes  "Grudge  not  one  against  another"  (v., 
9),  the  word  signifies  "murmur"  or  "bemoan"  (oreva^Tert) ? 

a  double  archaism  obscures  the  sense  of  the  original  6  ava-n\ripwv  t6v  tottov, 
"  He  that  Jilleth  the  place." 

*  Blunt,  Church  of  the  First  Three  Centuries,  p.  27, "  She  was  to  have  none 
of  those  children  able  to  minister  to  her,  nor  yet  nephews."  See  Trench's 
Authorized  Version,  p.  41. 


ARCHAISMS,  DEFECTS  IN  THE  ENGLISH,  ETC.  149 

Even  if  he  is  awave  that  "wicked  lewdness'''  (Acts  xviii.,  14) 
does  not  signify  gross  sensuality,  will  he  also  know  converse- 
ly that  by  "  the  hidden  things  of  dishonesty''''  (2  Cor.  iv.,  2) 
the  apostle  means  not  fraudulence,  want  of  probity,  but  "  se- 
cret deeds  of  shame''''  {alax"^vs)  ?  If  context  and  common 
sense  alike  teach  him  that  the  "  highmindedness"  which  St. 
Paul  more  than  once  condemns  {v\p7]\o(ppot'eiy,'Roni.  xi.,  20;  1 
Tim.  vi.,17;  rerucpwixivoi,  2  Tim.  iii.,  4)  is  not  what  we  com- 
monly understand  by  the  term,  will  he  also  perceive  that  the 
"maliciousness"  which  is  denounced  alike  by  St. Paul  (Rom. 
i.,  29,"  full  of  maliciousness")  and  St.  Peter  (1  Pet.  ii.,  16,"not 
using  your  liberty  for  a  cloak  of  maliciousness")  does  not  de- 
note one  special  form  of  evil,  but  the  vicious  character  gen- 
erally {Kada)  ? 

Again,  the  expressions  instantly  and  by-and-by  may  be 
taken  in  connection,  as  being  nearly  allied ;  yet  in  Biblical 
language  neither  signifies  what  it  would  signify  to  ourselves. 
I7istantly  has  not  a  temporal  sense  at  all,  but  means  "  urgent- 
ly," as  in  Luke  vii.,  4, "  They  besought  him  instantly  {mrov- 
Saiwc) ;"  while,  on  the  other  hand,  by-a7id-by,  having  a  tem- 
poral sense,  denotes  not  deferred,  but  immediate  action,  stand- 
ing most  frequently  for  tiflve  or  evdeioc,  and  therefore  corre- 
sponding to  the  modern  sense  of  insta?itly.  Thus,  in  the 
Greek  of  the  parable  of  the  sower,  the  instantaneous  welcome 
of  the  word  has  its  counterpart  in  the  i7istantaneous  apostasy 
under  persecution  (Matt,  xiii.,  20,  21),  evQvq  fiETo.  x^pac  ^"M" 
^avutv  avTov^  evdiie  aKavoaXl^irai ;  but  in  the  English  Version 
this  appears,  ^^Anon  with  joy  receiveth  it,"  '''■  By-and-by  he  is 
offended,"  where,  partly  through  the  archaisms  and  partly 
through  the  change  of  words,  the  expressiveness  of  the  orig- 
inal is  seriously  blunted. 

The  passage  last  quoted  contains  another  archaism,  which 
is  a  type  of  a  whole  class.  Words  derived  from  the  Latin 
and  other  foreign  languages,  being  comparatively  recent,  had 
very  frequently  not  arrived  at  their  ultimate  sense  when  our 
version  was  made,  and  were  more  liable  to  shift  their  mean- 


150    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FBESR  BEVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

ing  than  others.  We  have  witnessed  this  iDhenomenon  in  in- 
stantly^ and  the  same  was  also  the  case  with  offend,  offence. 
"If  thy  right  eye  offend  thee,"  "Woe  unto  him  through 
whom  the  offhices  come,"  do  not  convey  to  any  but  the  ed- 
ucated reader  the  idea  which  they  were  intended,  to  express. 
By  substituting  "  cause  to  offend"  (or  perhaps  "  cause  to 
stumble"  or  "to  fall")  for  "offend,"  we  may,  in  passages  where 
the  verb  occurs,  bring  out  the  idea  more  clearly  •  but  in  the 
case  of  the  substantive,  the  right  of  prescription  and  the  dif- 
ficulty of  finding  an  equivalent  may  plead  for  the  retention 
of  the  word.  But  where  other  Latinisms  are  concerned  no 
such  excuse  can  be  pleaded.  Thus,  "Occupy  till  I  come" 
{■KpayfxaTtvaaaQe,  Luke  xix.,13),  is  quite  indefensible.  Wiclifie 
has  marchaundise ;  Purvey  chaffer;  Tyndale  buy  and  sell ; 
and  it  is  difiicult  to  see  why  a  word  should  have  been  substi- 
tuted in  the  later  Bibles,  which  must  (one  would  think)  have 
appeared  novel  and  affected  at  the  time,  and  which  has 
changed  its  meaning  since.  I  have  suggested  '■'■  Trade  ye" 
above  (p.  52).  Another  example  is  "  O  generation  (yeri/jJ/xaT-a) 
of  vipers,"  which  the  English  reader  inevitably  takes  to  be  a 
parallel  expression  to  "  a  wicked  and  adulterous  generation 
(yf I'fa),"  though  the  Greek  words  are  quite  different,  and  gen- 
eration in  the  first  passage  signifies  "  ofispring"  or  "  brood" 
— two  good  old  English  words,  either  of  which  might  advan- 
tageously be  substituted  for  it.  Another  is  the  rendering  of 
Acts  xvii.,  23,  "As  I  passed  by  and  beheld  your  devotions" 
{aefjaffixara),  where  "  your  devotions"  is  not  a  misrendering, 
but  an  archaism,  signifying  "  the  objects  of  your  worship," 
"your  gods  or  idols."  Other  instances,  again,  are  1  Tim.Ui., 
13,  "They  that  have  used  the  office  of  a  deacon  well,  2yiirchase 
{■TrepnroiovvTai)  to  themselves  a  good  degree,"  where  the  idea 
of  traffic  suggested  by  the  modern  use  of  the  word  is  alien  to 
the  passage ;  and  Matt,  xvii.,  25,  "  When  he  was  gone  into  the 
house,  Jesus  ^reum^ef?  {irpoicpdaffey)  him,  saying,  What  think- 
est  thou,  Simon  ?"  in  which  passage,  at  all  events,  the  orig- 
inal meaning  of  "  prevent"  would  not  suggest  itself  to  the 


ARCHAISMS,  DEFECTS  IN  THE  ENGLISH,  ETC.  1 5 1 

English  reader.  In  both  cases  we  might  with  advantage  re- 
cur to  the  renderings  of  Tyndale,  "  get"  for  "  purchase,"  and 
"  spake  first"  for  "  prevented." 

From  the  word  last  mentioned  we  pass  not  unnaturally  to 
the  verb  Avhich  it  has  supplanted.  To  prevent  has  taken  the 
place  of  to  let,  meaning  to  check,  to  hinder,  while  this  latter 
verb  has  become  obsolete  in  this  sense.  Unnecessary  and 
imadvisable  as  it  would  be  to  alter  this  archaism  in  such 
phrases  as  "  Sore  let  and  hindered  in  running  the  race  that  is 
set  before  us,"  where  it  can  not  mislead,  its  occurrence  in  the 
New  Testament  is  not  always  free  from  objection.  In  2  Thess. 
ii.,  7,  for  instance — a  passage  difficult  enough  without  any  ar- 
tificial obscurities — "  He  who  now  letteth,  will  let,''''  should  not 
be  allowed  to  stand. 

Not  very  dissimilar  to  the  last  instance  is  the  ambiguity 
of"  go  about,"  used  in  our  version  as  a  common  rendering  of 
i^T}TeTy.  In  such  passages  as  John  vii.,  19,  20,  "Why  go  ye 
about  to  kill  me  ?"  "  Who  (/oeth  about  to  kill  thee  ?"  Acts  xxi., 
31, "As  they  went  about  to  kill  him,"  it  can  hardly  occur  to 
the  English  reader  that  nothing  more  is  meant  than  "  seek 
to  kill,"  as  the  same  phrase  ^rjrely  a-woKTEivai  is  translated  else- 
where, and  even  in  the  very  context  of  the  first  passage  (John 
vii.,  25).  In  Acts  xxiv.,  5,  6,  again,  the  misunderstanding  is 
rendered  almost  inevitable  by  the  context, "  A  mover  of  se- 
dition among  all  the  Jews  throughout  the  world  .  .  .  who 
also  hath  gone  about  to  profane  the  Temple ;"  where  the  ex- 
pression represents  another  verb  similar  to  t,r\Tflv  in  meaning, 
TO  lepou  eireipaaev  I3e(3r)\u)crai. 

After  disposing  of  the  archaisms,  little  remains  to  be  said 
about  the  English  of  our  version.  There  are,  however,  some 
ambiguities  of  translation  which  arise  from  other  causes. 
Thus  Ephes,  vi.,  12,  "Against  spiritual  wickedness  in  high 
places'^  {TrpoQ  TO.  TryevfiaTiKo.  Ttjg  "jrovTjpiag  kv  rolg  eTrovpavioig), 
where  the  English  reader  is  led  to  think  of  vice  in  persons 
of  rank  and  station;  Phil,  iii.,  14,  "The  prize  of  your  high 
calling  (rj/c  cii-w  K-Xj/o-fwe),"  where  the  English  epithet  rather 


152    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

suggests  quality  than  locality,  as  the  original  requires;  Col. 
iii.,  8,  "  But  now  you  also  put  off  all  these"  {wpI  ck  airodeade 
/cat  v/xeie  tU  Traira),  where  the  sentence  appears  to  be  indica- 
tive instead  of  imperative ;  1  Tim.  iii.,  16,  "And  without  con- 
troversy {ofioXoyovfjierivc)  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness," 
where  the  meaning  of  "controversy"  is  ambiguous,  and  where 
the  older  versions  translated  hfiokoyov^ii'WQ  "  without  nay"  or 
"without  doubt ;"  Heb.  v.,  2,  "  On  the  ignorant  and  on  them 
that  are  out  of  the  way''''  {toIq  ayvoovai  koL  TrXavtofiiyoit;).,  where 
the  repetition  of  the  preposition  leads  the  English  reader  still 
farther  away  from  the  proper  sense  of  irXayiofispoig ;  Heb.  v., 
12,  "For  when /or  the  time  ye  ought  to  be  teachers"  (/cat  yap 
ofsiXoyreg  that  diCaerKaXoi  ^ict  ray  ■)Q}6i'oy),  where  without  the 
Greek  no  one  Avould  imagine  that  "  for  the  time"  means  "  by 
reason  of  the  long  period  of  your  training;"  Apoc.  iv.,  11, 
"  For  thy  pleasure  they  are,  and  loere  created  {slcrl  i;al  kKTtaBr]- 
o-av),"*  where  are  reads  as  an  auxiliary.  In  all  such  cases 
(and  many  other  examples  might  be  given)  the  remedy  is 
easy. 

The  great  merit  of  our  version  is  its  truly  English  charac- 
ter— the  strength  and  the  homeliness  of  its  language.  Its 
authors  were  fully  alive  to  the  importance  of  preserving  this 
feature,  as  impressed  upon  the  English  Bible  by  Tyndale,  and 
set  their  faces  resolutely  against  the  Latinisms  to  which  the 
Rheims  Version  had  attempted  to  give  currency.f  In  this 
they  were  eminently  successful  as  a  rule,  and  it  is  only  to  be 
regretted  that  they  allowed  themselves  occasionally  to  de- 
part from  their  principle  where  there  was  no  adequate  need. 
The  word  occupy,  which  I  have  already  considered  from  a 
different  point  of  view,  is  an  illustration.  Another  is  addict 
in  1  Cor.  xvi.,  15,  "They  have  addicted  themselves  {iralav 

*  So  the  received  text ;  but  the  correct  reading  is  ijtrav  for  dai. 

t  In  this  version  I  open  a  chapter  accidentally  (Ephes.  iv.),  and  find  "  do- 
nation of  Christ,"  "inferior  parts,"  "doctors,"  "circumvention  of  errour," 
"juncture  of  subministration,"  "  vanity  of  their  sense,"  "impudicity,"  "  con- 
tristate."  Yet  it  was  published  nearly  thirty  years  before  the  Authorized 
Version. 


ARCHAISMS,  DEFECTS  IN  THE  ENGLISH,  ETC.  153 

eavrouc)  to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,"  which  rendering  seems 
to  have  been  introduced  first  in  the  Bishops'  Bible,  and  can 
not  be  considered  an  imjarovement  on  the  Geneva  Version, 
"They  have  given  themselves  to  minister  unto  the  saints." 
A  more  flagrant  instance  is  2  Cor.  ix.,13,  where  a  concurrence 
of  Latinisms  obscures  the  sense  and  mars  the  English, "By 
the  experiment  of  this  ministration  they  glorify  God  for  your 
professed  subjection  unto  the  Gospel  of  Christ,"  where  "  ex- 
periment" and  "  professed"  ought  at  all  events  to  be  altered, 
as  they  have  shifted  their  meaning,  and  where  for  once  the 
Kheims  Version  gives  purer  English,  "  By  the  proof  of  this 
ministry  glorifying  God  in  the  obedience  of  your  confession 
unto  the  Gospel  of  Christ"  (olu  riig  coicififje  riic  ciaicopiac  ravrrtg 
do^ai^ovreQ  tov  Qeop  ettI  rij  v-n-orayrj  r»7c  ofioXoylae  vfxcjv  dg  to  evay- 

yiklOV  TOV  XpKTTOv). 

A  fault  of  another  kind  is  translating  ocpeKov  "  I  would  to 
God"  (1  Cor.  iv.,  8),  though  the  earlier  versions  all  give  it  so 
with  the  exception  of  Wicliffe,  whose  simpler  rendering  "I 
would"  might  be  adopted  with  advantage.  In  this  case  the 
introduction  of  the  divine  name  is  hardly  defensible.  In  the 
case  of  /x>)  yivoiTo,  "  God  forbid,"  the  difficulty  of  finding  an- 
other idiomatic  rendering  may  possibly  excuse  it.  Yet  even 
here  we  can  not  but  regret  a  rendering  which  interferes  so 
seriously  with  the  argument,  as  it  presents  itself  to  the  En- 
glish reader,  in  such  passages  as  Rom.  iii.,  4, 6,  "  God  forbid ; 
yea,  let  God  be  true  (/i>/  ytVotro,  ywiaQw  Ze  6  Qeoc  aXi^dijg)  ," 
"God  forbid,  for  then  how  shall  God  judge  the  world  (/d)  yi- 
voiTO,  tTrei  TTwc  Kpivei  6  Qeog  tov  KocTjj.oi')  ?" 

I  shall  pass  over  instances  of  careless  grammar  in  the  En- 
glish, because  these  are  not  numerous,  and  have  been  dealt 
with  elsewhere.  But  it  may  be  worth  while  to  point  out  in- 
advertences of  another  kind — Avhere  the  same  word  is  twice 
rendered  in  the  English  Version,  or  where  conversely  the  same 
English  word  is  made  to  do  duty  for  two  Greek  words.  Of 
the  latter,  examples  occur  in  John  xi.,  14,  '•'•Then  {joTt  olv) 
said  Jesus  unto  them  plainly,"  where  "  then"  stands  for  two 


154      LIOHTFOOT  OJSf  A  FRESH  REVISION-  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

words, "  then"  local  and  "  then"  argumentative ;  or  Rom.  vi., 
21,  "What  fruit  had  ye  the7i  (nVa  oZv  Kapirbv  e'ixere  rore)  in 
those  things  whereof  ye  are  now  ashamed  ?"  Avhere  exactly 
the  same  error  is  committed.  Of  the  converse  error  —  the 
double  rendering  of  the  same  word — we  have  an  instance  in 
James  V.,16,7ro\u  tir^uei  cir]<TiQ  citcatov  eyepyovfjievri,  "The  effect- 
ual fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth  much,"  Avhere 
the  word  "  effectual"  is  worse  than  superfluous.  This  last  ren- 
dering I  am  disposed  to  ascribe  to  carelessness  in  correcting 
the  copy  for  the  press.  The  word  would  be  written  down  on 
the  copy  of  the  Bishop.s'  Bible  which  the  revisers  used  either 
as  a  tentative  correction  or  an  accidental  gloss,  and,  not  hav- 
ing been  erased  before  the  copy  was  sent  to  the  press,  would 
appear  in  the  text.* 

To  the  same  cause,  also,  we  may  perhaps  ascribe  the  ren- 
dering of  1  Cor.  xiv.,  23,  lay  olv  avreXdrj  >/  tkxXTjo-m  6\r)  eiri  to 
avTo.  In  the  Bishops'  Bible  this  stands,  "If  therefore  all  the 
Church  be  come  together  into  07ie  place,"  but  in  the  Author- 
ized, "  If  therefore  the  whole  Church  be  come  together  into 
some  place."  I  presume  that  the  revisers  intended  to  alter 
"  one"  into  "  the  same,"  but  that  this  correction  was  indis- 
tinctly made,  and  being  confused  with  the  other  correction  in 
the  same  clause  which  required  a  transposition  of  "  the,"  led 
to  the  error  which  stands  in  our  text.  What  misconception 
may  arise  from  a  mere  error  of  the  press  appears  from  the 
often  discussed  phrase,  "  Strain  at  a  gnat,"  where  unquestion- 
ably our  translators  intended  to  retain  the  rendering  of  the 
earlier  versions, "  Strain  out  a  gnat,"  and  the  existing  text  can 
only  be  explained  as  a  misprint.  Indeed,  the  printing  of  the 
edition  of  1611  is  very  far  from  correct;  and  if  our  present 

*  In  the  Bishops'  Bible,  which  the  translators  had  before  them,  the  passage 
runs, "  The  fervent  prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth  much."  The  only  fact 
connected  with  previous  versions  which  I  can  discover  as  throwing  any  light 
on  the  insertion  of  this  word  "  effectual"  is  a  marginal  note  in  Tomson's 
New  Testament,  printed  with  the  Geneva  Bible:  "He  commendeth  prayers 
by  the  effects  that  come  of  them,  that  all  men  may  understand  that  there  is 
nothing  more  effectual  than  they  are,  so  that  they  proceed  from  a  pure  mind. " 


ARCHAISMS,  DEFECTS  IN  THE  ENGLISH,  ETC.  155 

Bibles  for  the  most  part  deserve  praise  for  great  accuracy, 
we  owe  this  to  the  fact  that  the  text  of  this  first  edition  was 
not  regarded  as  sacred  or  authoritative,  but  corrections  were 
freely  introduced  afterwards  wherever  a  plain  error  was  de- 
tected. Thus,  in  Exod,  xxxviii.,  ll/'JIoopes  of  the  pillars" 
has  been  altered  into  ''hooks  of  the  pillars;"  in  Isaiah  xlix., 
20,  "The  place  is  too  straight^'  into  "The  place  is  too  strait/'' 
in  Hos.  vi.,  5,  "-Sheioed  them  by  the  prophets"  (where  the 
word  "  shewed"  was  evidently  introduced  by  an  ingenious 
compositor  who  did  not  understand  the  correct  text)  into 
''Hewed  them  by  the  prophets  ;"  in  Ecclus.  xliv.,  5,  "Rejected 
verses"  into  "recited  verses;"  and  the  like.  In  the  headings 
of  the  chapters,  too,  some  curious  errors  in  the  edition  of  1611 
were  afterwards  corrected:  e.  g.,  2  Sam.  xxiv.,  "e/eye^i  thou- 
sand" into  "  thirteen  hundred  thousand ;"  1  Cor.  v.,  "  shamed" 
into  "shunned."*  Nay,  in  some  passages  the  changes  made 
in  later  editions  are  even  bolder  than  this,  as,  for  instance,  in 
1  Tim.  i.,  4,  oii^o^ofxiai'  [the  correct  reading  is  okovoixiav]  Qeov 
T)]v  tv  niarei,  "Edifying  which  is  in  faith,"  the  word  Qeov  by 
some  inadvertence  was  untranslated  in  the  edition  of  1611, 
and  so  it  remained  for  many  years  afterwards,  until  in  the 
Cambridge  edition  of  1638  "godly"  was  inserted  after  the 
earlier  versions,  and  this  has  held  its  ground  ever  since.f  As 
this  wise  lib^erty  was  so  freely  exercised  in  other  cases,  it  is 
strange  that  the  obvious  misprint  "  strain  af^  should  have 
survived  the  successive  revisions  of  two  centuries  and  a  half 

*  The  corrections  in  Ecclus,  xliv.,  5,  2  Sam.  xxiv.,  were  made  in  1612; 
those  in  Exod.  xxxviii.,  11,  Isa.  xlix.,  20,  Hos.  vi.,  5, 1  Cor.  v.,  in  1613.  A 
number  of  errors,  however,  still  remained,  which  were  removed  from  time  to 
time  in  later  editions.  The  edition  of  1613,  though  it  corrected  some  blun- 
ders, was  grossly  inaccurate,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  collation  with  the  edi- 
tion of  161 1  prefixed  to  the  Oxford  reprint  of  the  latter  (1833). 

+  I  owe  this  fact,  which  has  probably  been  noticed  elsewhere,  to  some  val- 
uable MS.  notes  of  the  late  Prof.  Grote  on  the  printing  of  the  English  Bible. 
The  error  may  be  explained  by  supposing  that  the  word  "godly"  was  struck 
out  in  the  copy  of  the  Bishops"  Bible  altered  for  the  press,  while  the  proposed 
substitution  was  omitted  to  be  made,  or  Avas  made  in  such  a  way  that  it  es- 
caped the  eye  of  the  compositor. 


156    LIOHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISIOX  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

While  speaking  of  errors  and  corrections  of  the  press,  it 
may  be  worth  while,  in  passing,  to  observe  how  this  license  of 
change  has  affected  the  orthograjjhy.  It  would  be  a  surprise 
to  an  English  reader  now  to  find  in  his  Bible  such  words  as 
aliant,  causey,  charet,  cise,  crudle,  damosell,  fauchion,  fet,  fift, 
flixe,  iland,  mids,  moe,  monethes,  neesing,  oweth  (Lev.  xiv.,  35, 
for  "  owneth"),  price  (Phil,  iii.,  14,  for  "  prize"),  renowme,  etc. 
While  these  have  been  altered  into  alien,  causeway,  chariot, 
size,  curdle,  damsel,  falchion,  fetched,  fifth,  flux,  island,  midst, 
more,  months,  sneezing,  owneth,  prize,  renown,  respectively, 
a  capricious  conservatism  has  retained  the  archaic  spelling  in 
other  cases,  such  as  fat,  fetches,  graff,  hoise,  pilled,  strawed, 
throughly,  for  vat,  vetches,  graft,  hoist,  peeled,  strewed,  thor- 
oughly. In  some  cases  this  caprice  ajDpears  in  the  same  word ; 
thus  neesings  is  retained  in  Job  xli.,  18,  while  S7ieezedis  sub- 
stituted for  neesed  in  2  Kings  iv.,  35.  This  license  has  had  its 
disadvantages  as  well  as  its  advantages;  if  the  substitution 
of  "  its"  for  "  it"  (Lev.  xxv.,  5,  "  it  owne  accord,"  1611*)  was 
imperatively  demanded  by  the  change  in  the  language,  the 
alteration  of  "  shamefast,  shamefastness"  into  "  shamefaced, 
shamefacedness"  is  unfortunate,  as  suggesting  a  wrong  deri- 
vation and  an  inadequate  meaning.  Amid  all  these  changes 
it  is  a  happy  accident  that  the  genuine  form  of  the  name  of 
Philemon's  wife  has  survived,  though  the  precedent  of  the 
older  versions  and  the  authority  of  modern  commentators 
alike  would  have  led  to  the  substitution  of  the  Latin  name 
"  Appia"  for  the  Phrygian  "  Apphia."f 

*  See  Wright's  Bible  Word- Book,  s.v.  It. 

t  In  Philem.  2  the  reading  is  unquestionably  'Att^/^,  though  some  uncial 
MSS.  (of  little  value  on  a  point  of  orthography)  have  a^cJ/a,  a  legitimate  form, 
or  dii^i(f,a.  manifest  corruption :  the  authority  for  'Ainricf.  is  absolutely  worth- 
less. The  fact  is,  that  this  word  has  no  connection  (except  in  sound)  with  the 
Eomau  Appia,  but  represents  a  native  Phrygian  name,  which,  with  various 
modifications, appears  again  and  again  in  the  Phrygian  inscriptions:  e.g., 
Boeckh,  Co?7?./nscr.,  3814,  Nft'/cav^poc  Kai  'A(p(pia  yvvrj  avrov  ;  3826,  Ilpwro- 
Haxoc  'A^[0](^  yvvaiKi ;  3932  in,  ry  yvvaiKi  avrov  'A\_7r'](piif ;  3962,  'Afl-^ia 
(yd)  Ktifiat;  3827  ICAppx.), 'A00(«  Mevdv6povi  3846  z(Appx.),  BwXae 'Adi^i^ 
(jvi'j3i({).    Frequently,  also,  we  meet  with  the  diminutive  U7r(ptov,d^<piov,or 


PROSPECTS  OF  THE  NEW  MEYISION.  157 


V. 

I  have  attempted  to  show  in  what  directions  our  English 
Version  is  capable  of  improvement.  It  Avill  be  necessary  to 
substitute  an  amended  for  a  faulty  text ;  to  remove  artificial 
distinctions  which  do  not  exist  in  the  Greek ;  to  restore  real 
distinctions  which,  existing  there,  were  overlooked  by  our 
translators ;  to  correct  errors  of  grammar  and  errors  of  lexi- 
cography ;  to  revise  the  treatment  of  proper  names  and  tech- 
nical terms;  and  to  remove  a  few  archaisms,  ambiguities,  and 
faults  of  expression,  besides  inaccuracies  of  editorship,  in  the 
English.  All  this  may  be  done  without  altering  the  character 
of  the  version. 

In  this  review  of  the  question  I  have  done  nothing  more 
than  give  examples  of  the  different  classes  of  errors.  An 
exhaustive  treatment  of  the  subject  was  impossible ;  and  the 
case,  therefore,  is  much  stronger  than  it  is  here  made  to  ap- 
pear. If,  for  instance,  any  one  will  take  the  trouble  to  go 
through  some  one  book  of  the  New  Testament,  as  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  referring  to  any  recent  critical  edition  of  the 
Greek  text  and  comparing  it  carefully  with  the  English,  he 
will  see  that  the  faults  of  our  version  are  very  far  from  being 
few  and  slight,  or  imaginary.  But,  if  a  fair  case  for  revision 
has  been  made  out,  it  still  remains  to  ask  whether  there  is 
any  reasonable  prospect  of  success  if  the  attempt  be  made  at 
the  present  time. 

Now  in  one  important  point — perhaps  the  most  important 
of  all — the  answer  must,  I  think,  be  favorable.     Greek  schol- 

a<piov,&s  a  female  name:  c.^r.,  3849,  3891,  3899,  3902  m,  3846  z  (Appx.). 
The  form  "Ainrt],  however,  sometimes  occurs.  This  word  may  be  compared 
with  other  common  Phrygian  names,  Ammia,  Nania,  Tatia,  and  the  masculine 
Pappias  or  Papias. 

Not  observing  the  Phrygian  origin  of  the  name,  the  commentators  speak  as 
though  it  were  the  feminine  corresponding  to  the  masculine  in  Acts  xxviii., 
15,  'Attttiow  ^opov,  and  call  attention  to  the  difference  in  form,  tt^  for  mr. 
All  the  older  translations,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  print  it  Appia,  so  that 
the  Authorized  Version  stands  alone  in  its  correctness. 


158    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

raship  has  never  stood  higher  in  England  than  it  does  at  the 
present  moment.  There  is  not  only  a  sufficient  body  of 
scholars  ca^^able  of  undertaking  the  work,  but  there  is  also 
(and  this  is  a  most  important  element  in  the  consideration) 
a  very  large  number  besides  fully  competent  to  submit  the 
work  of  the  revisers,  when  completed,  to  a  minute  and  search- 
ing criticism.  And,  though  we  may  trust  that  any  one  who 
is  called  to  take  his  share  in  the  work  will  do  so  with  a  deep 
sense  of  the  responsibility  of  the  task  assigned  to  him,  still  it 
will  be  a  great  stimulus  to  feel  that  he  is  surrounded  by  com- 
petent critics  on  all  sides,  and  a  great  support  to  be  able  to 
gather  opinions  freely  from  without.  But  I  would  venture 
to  go  a  step  beyond  this.  I  should  be  glad  to  think  my  ap- 
prehensions groundless,  but  there  is  at  least  some  reason  to 
forebode  that  Greek  scholarship  has  reached  its  height  in  En- 
gland, and  that  henceforth  it  may  be  expected  to  decline.* 
The  clamors  of  other  branches  of  learning — more  especially 
of  scientific  studies — for  a  recognized  place  in  general  educa- 
tion are  growing  louder  and  louder,  and  must  make  them- 
selves heard;  and,  if  so,  the  almost  exclusive  dominion  of  the 
Classical  languages  is  past.  I  need  not  here  enter  into  the 
question  whether  these  languages  have  or  have  not  been 
overrated  as  an  instrument  of  education.  It  is  sufficient  to 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that,  whether  rightly  or  wrongly, 
public  opinion  is  changing  in  this  respect,  and  to  prepare  for 
the  consequences. 

And,  if  we  turn  from  the  Greek  language  to  the  English, 
the  present  moment  seems  not  unfavorable  for  the  undertak- 
ing. Many  grave  apprehensions  have  been  expressed  on  this 
point,  and  alarming  pictures  are  drawn  of  the  fatal  results 

*  Mr. Marsh  {Lectures  on  the  English  Language,  xxviii.,  p.C39)  saj's," There 
is  no  sufficient  reason  to  doubt  that  at  the  end  of  this  century  the  Icnowledge 
of  Biblical  Greek  and  Hebrew  -will  be  as  much  in  advance  of  the  present 
standard  as  that  standard  is  before  the  sacred  philology  of  the  beginning  of 
this  century."  I  wish  I  could  take  this  very  sanguine  view  of  the  probable 
future  of  the  Greek  language  in  England;  as  regards  Hebrew  I  have  ab- 
stained from  expressing  an  opinion. 


PBOSPECTS  OF  THE  NEW  EEVISIOX.  159 

which  will  follow  from  any  attempt  to  meddle  with  the  pure 
idiom  of  our  English  Bible.  Of  the  infusion  of  Latinisms 
and  Gallicisms  with  which  we  are  threatened  I  myself  have 
no  fear.  In  the  last  century,  or  in  the  beginning  of  the  pres- 
ent, the  danger  would  have  been  real.  The  objections  urged 
against  the  language  of  our  English  Bible  by  those  who  then 
advocated  revision  are  now  almost  incredible.  The  speci- 
mens which  they  offered  of  an  improved  diction  of  the  mod- 
ern type  Avould  appear  simply  ludicrous  to  us  if  the  subject 
on  which  the  experiment  was  tried  had  been  less  grave.* 
The  very  words  which  these  critics  Avould  have  ejected  from 
our  English  Bibles  as  barbarous,  or  uncouth,  or  obsolete, 
have  again  taken  their  place  in  our  highest  poetry,  and  even 
in  our  popular  language.  And  though  it  is  impossible  that 
the  nineteenth  century  should  ever  speak  the  language  of 
the  sixteenth  or  seventeenth,  still  a  genuine  appreciation  and 
careful  study  of  the  Authorized  Version  and  of  the  older 
translations  will  (we  may  reasonably  hope)  enable  the  present 
revisers,  in  the  corrections  which  they  may  introduce,  to  avoid 
any  anachronisms  of  diction  which  would  offend  the  taste  or 
jar  upon  the  ear.  There  is  all  this  difference  between  the 
present  advocates  of  revision  and  the  former,  that  now  we 
reverence  the  language  and  idiom  of  our  English  Bibles, 
whereas  they  regarded  it  as  the  crowning  offense  which 
seemed  most  to  call  for  amendment.  In  several  instances 
the  end  may  be  attained  by  returning  to  the  renderings  of 
the  earlier  versions  which  the  revisers  of  1611  abandoned. 

*  See  examples  in  Trench's  A  uthorized  Version,  p.  32  seq. ,  and  Prof.  Plnmp- 
tre's  article  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  s.  y.  Version,  Authorized.  "  I 
remember  the  relief,"  writes  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold  {Culture  and  Anarchy,^. 
44),  "with  which,  after  long  feeling  the  sway  of  Franklin's  imperturbable 
good  sense,  I  came  upon  a  project  of  his  for  a  new  version  of  the  Book  of  Job 
to  replace  the  old  version,  the  style  of  which,  says  Franklin,  has  become  obso- 
lete, and  thence  less  agreeable.  •  'I  give,' he  continues,  'a  few  verses  which 
may  serve"as  a  sample  of  the  kind  of  version  I  would  recommend'  ....  I 
well  remember  how,  when  first  I  read  that,  I  diew  a  deep  breath  of  relief,  and 
said  to  myself.  After  all,  there  is  a  stretch  of  humanity  beyond  Franklin's  vic- 
torious good  sense." 


160    LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  X.  TEST. 

In  almost  every  other  case,  the  words  and  even  the  expres- 
sions which  the  correction  requires  will  be  supplied  from 
some  other  part  of  the  Authorized  Version  itself  Very  rare 
indeed  are  the  exceptions  where  this  assistance  will  fail,  and 
where  it  may  be  necessary  to  introduce  a  word  for  which 
there  is  no  authority  in  the  English  Bibles.  In  these  cases 
care  must  be  taken  that  the  word  so  introduced  shall  be  in 
harmony  with  the  general  character  of  our  Biblical  diction. 
So  much  license  the  new  revisers  may  reasonably  claim  for 
themselves,  as  it  was  certainly  claimed  by  the  revisers  of 
1611.  If  those  cautions  are  observed,  the  Bible  Avill  still  re- 
main to  future  generations  what  it  has  been  to  past — not 
only  the  storehouse  of  the  highest  truth,  but  also  the  purest 
well  of  their  native  English.  Indeed,  we  may  take  courage 
from  the  foct  that  the  language  of  our  English  Bible  is  not 
the  language  of  the  age  in  which  the  translators  lived,  but 
in  its  grand  simplicity  stands  out  in  contrast  to  the  ornate 
and  often  affected  diction  of  the  literature  of  that  time;*  for  if 
the  retention  of  an  older  and  better  model  was  possible  in  the 
seventeenth  century,  it  is  quite  as  possible  in  the  nineteenth. 
Nor,  again,  can  there  be  any  reasonable  ground  for  appre- 
hension as  to  the  extent  and  character  of  the  changes  which 
may  be  introduced.  The  regulations  under  which  the  new 
company  of  revisers  will  act  are  a  sufficient  guarantee  against 
hasty  and  capricious  change.  The  language  which  public 
speakers  and  newspaper  critics  have  held  on  this  point  would 
only  then  have  force  if  absolute  power  were  given  to  each  in- 
dividual reviser  to  introduce  all  his  favorite  crotchets.  But 
any  one  who  has  acted  in  concert  with  a  large  number  of  in- 
dependent men,  training  apart  and  under  separate  influences, 
will  know  how  very  difficult  it  is  to  secure  the  consent  of  two 
thirds  of  the  whole  body  to  any  change  which  is  not  a  mani- 
fest improvement,  and  how  wholly  impossible  it  would  be  to 
obtain  the  suffrages  of  this  number  for  a  novel  and  question- 
able rendering,  however  important  it  might  seem  to  its  pro- 
*  See  Marsh's  Lectures,'^.  621  seq. 


PROSPECTS  OF  THE  NEW  REVISION.  j g^ 

poser.  It  is  very  possible  that  several  corrections  which  I 
have  suggested  here  may  appear  to  others  in  this  unfavora- 
ble light.  Indeed,  it  is  hardly  probable  that  in  all  cases  they 
should  escape  being  condemned ;  for  any  one  interested  in 
such  a  subject  is  naturally  led  to  give  prominence  to  those 
views  on  which  he  lays  stress  himself,  just  because  they  ap- 
pear to  him  not  to  liave  received  proper  attention  from  oth- 
ers ;  but  if  so,  it  is  morally  certain  that  they  will  be  treated 
as  they  deserve,  and  not  sufiered  to  disfigure  the  Revised 
Version  as  it  will  appear  before  the  public.  Indeed,  if  there 
be  any  reasonable  grounds  for  apprehension,  the  danger  is 
rather  that  the  changes  introduced  will  be  too  slight  to  sat- 
isfy the  legitimate  demands  of  theology  and  scholarship,  than 
that  they  will  be  so  sweeping  as  to  affect  the  character  of  our 
English  Bible. 

Lastly,  in  one  resj)ect,  at  least,  the  present  revision  is  com- 
menced under  very  auspicious  circumstances.  There  has  been 
great  liberality  in  inviting  the  co-operation  of  those  Biblical 
scholars  who  are  not  members  of  the  Anglican  communion, 
and  they,  on  their  part,  have  accorded  a  prompt  and  cheerful 
welcome  to  this  invitation.  This  is  a  matter  for  great  thank- 
fulness. It  may  be  accepted  as  a  guarantee  that  the  work  is 
undertaken  not  with  any  narrow  sectarian  aim,  but  in  the 
broad  interests  of  truth ;  while  also  it  is  an  earnest  that  if 
the  revision,  when  completed,  recommends  itself  by  its  in- 
trinsic merits  (and  if  it  does  not,  the  sooner  it  is  forgotten 
the  better),  then  no  unworthy  jealousy  will  stand  in  the  way 
of  its  general  reception.*  And  meanwhile  may  we  not  cher- 
ish a  loftier  hope  ?     Now,  for  the  first  time,  the  bishops  of 

*  "At  this  day,"  wrote  Mr.  Marsh  in  ISaO,  "there  could  be  no  harmony  of 
action  on  this  subject  between  different  churches  ...  So  long  as  this  sec- 
tarian feeling — for  it  can  be  appropriately  designated  by  no  other  term — pre- 
vails on  either  side,  there  can  be  no  union  upon  conditions  compatible  with 
the  self-respect  of  the  parties"  (p.  64!  seq.).  This  preliminary  difficulty,  at 
least, has  been  overcome;  the  "  better  counsels," of  which  this  able  writer 
seems  to  have  despaired,  have  prevailed ;  no  wound  has  been  inflicted  on 
self-respect ;  and  entire  harmony  of  action  has  been  attained. 


162    LIOHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

our  Church  and  the  representatives  of  our  Convocation  will 
meet  at  the  same  table  Avith  Nonconformist  divines,  and  will 
engage  in  a  common  work  of  a  most  sacred  kind — the  inter- 
pretation of  those  writings  which  all  alike  reverence  as  the 
source  of  their  truest  inspiration  here  and  the  foundation  of 
their  highest  hopes  hereafter.  Is  it  too  much  to  anticipate 
that  by  the  experience  of  this  united  work  the  Christian  com- 
munities in  England  may  be  drawn  more  closely  together, 
and  that,  whether  it  succeed  or  fail  in  its  immediate  object, 
it  may  at  least  dissipate  many  prejudices  and  jealousies,  may 
promote  a  better  mutual  understanding,  and  thus,  by  foster- 
ing inward  sympathy,  may  lead  the  way  to  greater  outward 
harmony  among  themselves,  and  a  more  intimate  union  with 
the  Divine  Head?* 

*  It  will  be  remembered  that  this  hope  was  expressed  before  the  Revision 
Company  had  met.  If  I  felt  at  liberty  to  modify  the  expression  by  the  light 
of  subsequent  experience,  I  should  speak  even  more  strongly. 


APPENDIX. 

On  the  Words  eTriovmog,  inpiovaioq. 


I. 

The  former  of  these  two  words,  found  only  in  a  petition  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer  as  given  both  by  St.  Matthew  (vi.,  11,  rbv  dprov  I'lfiiuv  rbv  tTnovaiov 
Sog  I'ljuv  aiifiipov)  and  by  St.  Luke  (xi.,  3,  riv  dprov  t'ljxwv  rbv  iiriovaiov  civov 
t'lfuv  ro  Kaff  7iiiipav),  is  a  well-known  difficulty  in  Biblical  interpretation,  and 
it  is  certainly  a  remarkable  fact  that  so  much  diversity  of  opinion  should  be 
possible  regarding  an  expression  which  occiu's  in  this  most  fomiliar  and  oft- 
enest  repeated  passage  of  the  Gospels. 

Origen  tells  us  (Ue  Oral.,  27,  i.,  p.  2-to,  Delarue)  that  the  word  tiriovaLOf 
does  not  once  occur  in  Greek  literature,  and  that  it  is  not  current  in  the  col- 
loquial language  {napd  ovSevi  ri>iv  'E\\i]vijJi>  ovre  tuiv  <TO(pii)v  wvofiacrai  ovre 
iv  ry  rCJv  icuutCjv  avv^Qticj.  TirpiiTTai).  "It  seems,"  he  adds,  to  have  been 
coined  (jrenXaaQai)  hj  the  evangehsts.  Matthew  and  Luke  agree  in  using  it 
w-ithout  any  difference.  The  same  course  has  been  taken  in  other  cases  also 
by  persons  translating  from  the  Hebrew.     For  what  Greek  ever  used  either 

of  the  expressions  ivioTiZov  or  aKovriaOijTi  ? A  similar  expression  to 

iiriovaiov  occurs  in  Moses,  being  uttered  by  God,  But  ye  shall  he  to  vie  a  peo- 
ple irtpiovaiog.    And  it  seems  to  me  that  both  words  are  formed  from  ovaia." 

This  statement  is  important,  because  it  shows  that  the  Greek  fathers  de- 
rived no  assistance  in  the  interpretation  of  the  word  from  the  spoken  or  writ- 
ten language,  and  thus  their  views  are  not  entitled  to  the  deference  which  we 
should  elsewhere  accord  to  them  as  interpreters  of  a  living  language  of  which 
we  only  possess  the  fragmentaiy  remains.  In  this  particular  instance  they 
cease  to  be  authorities.  The  same  data  which  were  open  to  them  ai"e  open 
to  us  also,  and  from  these  we  are  free  to  draw  our  conclusions  independently. 

These  data  are  threefold  :  (1.)  The  Etymological  Form ;  (2.)  The  Kequire- 
ments  of  the  Sense ;  (3.)  The  Tenor  of  Tradition. 

This  last  element  seems  to  me  to  be  especially  important  in  the  present 
case.  The  Lords  Prayer  was  doubtless  used  from  very  early  times  in  pri- 
vate devotion.  It  certainly  formed  a  part  of  the  public  services  of  the  Church, 
in  which  (to  mention  no  other  use)  it  was  repeated  at  the  celebration  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist.*  The  traditional  sense,  therefore,  which  was  commonly  at- 
tached to  a  word  occurring  in  it  must  have  a  high  value. 

•  Of  the  use  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  the  early  Church,  see  Bingham's  Antiquities, 
xiii.,  vii.,  §  1  seq.,  and  Probst,  Litiirgie  der  drei  ersten  ChristUchm  Jahrlnmderte,  In- 
dex, 8.  V.  Vater  wiser. 


164    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FBESH  BEVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

It  was  chiefly  the  conviction  that  justice  had  not  been  done  to  this  consid- 
eration which  led  me  to  institute  the  investigation  afresh.*  Previous  writers 
have  laid  stress  on  the  scholastic  interpretation  of  Origen  and  his  successors, 
as  though  this  were  the  best  authenticated  tradition,  when  they  ought  rather 
to  have  sought  for  the  common  sense  of  the  Church  in  the  primitive  versions, 
which  are  both  earlier  in  date  than  Origen,  and  cover  a  much  wider  ai'ea.  I 
hope  to  make  the  force  of  the  distinction  between  the  scholastic  and  tradi- 
tional interpretations  clearer  in  the  sequel. 

The  different  explanations  which  have  been  given  to  the  Mord  fall  into 
two  classes ;  (1.)  Those  which  connect  it  with  (svai,  deriving  it  from  iiriivai 
through  iTTuov  or  i-movaa,  and  (2.)  Those  which  connect  it  with  dvai,  as  a 
compound  from  IttI  and  ovaia.  Each  class  includes  various  explanations, 
but  the  one  is  distinguished  from  the  other  by  a  simple  criterion.  The  mean- 
ings belonging  to  the  one  class  are  temporal ;  to  the  other,  qualitative. 

In  i\ie first  class  we  find  the  following:  (i.)  to-morrow' s,  derived  directly 
from  tTrtoiiffa,"  the  coming  day,"  or"  the  morrow :"  (ii.)  coming.,  either  taken 
from  cVtor'o-n,  and  meaning  the  same  as  the  last,  but  more  vaguely  expressed, 
or  derived  directly  from  tTrdvai,  iinwv  (without  the  intervention  of  the  femi- 
nine tTciovaa')  :  (iii.)  daily,  which  seems  to  be  got  from  the  first  sense,  "for 
the  coming  day:"  (iv.)  continual,  which  is  probably  a  paraphrastic  mode  of 
expressing  (i.)  or  (iii.):  (v. ^  future,  "yet  to  come,"  from  tTriwv;  in  which 
case  the  expression  is  most  often  applied  in  a  spiritual  sense  to  Christ,  the 
bread  of  life,  who  shall  come  hereafter. 

Under  the  second  head,  also,  various  explanations  are  comprised:  (i.)for 
our  sustenance,  and  so  "necessary,"  ovffia  being  referred  to  phj^sical  subsist- 
ence; (ji.)fior  our  essential  life,  and  so  "spiritual,  eternal,"  ovaia  signifying 
the  absolute  or  higher  being;  [\\\.^  pre-eminent,  excellent,  surpassing,  as  be- 
ing "above  all  ovoiai,"  and  so  nearly  equivalent  to  irtpiovaioQ;  (iv.)  abun- 
dant, a  meaning  akin  to  the  last,  and  apparently  reached  by  giving  the  same 
sense  "above"  to  stti  ;  (v.)  consuhstantial,  a  sense  which  is  attained  by  forcing 
the  meaning  of  the  preposition  in  another  direction.! 

In  this  list  I  have  enumerated  only  those  meanings  which  were  given  to 
the  word  during  the  first  five  centuries.  More  recent  writers  have  added  to 
the  number,  but  their  interpretations,  when  not  deduced  directly  from  one  or 
other  of  the  senses  already  given,  are  so  far-fetched  and  so  unnatural  that 
they  do  not  deserve  to  be  seriously  considered. 

Again,  I  have  confined  myself  to  direct  inteipretations  of  imovaioc,  not  re- 
garding such  variations  of  meaning  as  arise  from  different  senses  attached  to 
the  substantive  apTog.  Thus,  for  instance,"  our  daily  bread"  might  be  either 
the  daily  sustenance  for  the  body  or  the  daily  sustenance  for  the  soul.  But, 
though  these  two  senses  are  widely  divergent,  their  divergence  is  not  due  to 
any  difference  of  interpretation  affecting  imovcrtoc,  with  which  word  alone  I 
am  concerned. 

*  The  fullest  recent  investigation  of  the  meaning  of  emovaio^  with  which  I  am  ac- 
quainted is  in  Tholnck's  Exposition  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  ii.,  p.  172  geq.  (Engl, 
trans.),  where  he  arrives  at  conclusions  different  from  my  own.  He  gives  a  list  of 
previous  treatises  on  the  subject.  Among  the  more  important  are  those  of  Pfeiffer 
and  Stolberg  in  the  Thesatir.  Thcol.  Philol.,  ii.,  p.  116  seq.,  123  seq.  (Amstel.,  1702). 

t  See  the  passage  from  Victoriuus  quoted  on  p.  174-5. 


APPENDIX.  105 

I  shall  now  consider  the  two  classes  of  meanings  which  are  distinguished 
above,  testing  them  by  the  considerations  already  enumerated  :  (1.)  The  Et- 
ymology of  the  Word ;  (2.)  The  Eequirements  of  the  Sense ;  (3.)  The  Tenor 
of  Tradition. 

§  1.  The  Etymology  of  the  Word. 

'H  iirioiiaa  is  commonly  used  for  "the  coming  day"  "the  morrow."  In 
this  sense  it  occurs  frequently  without  the  substantive  iij-npa  both  in  Biblical 
Greek  (Prov.  xxvii.,  1,  ov  yap  yu'woKsic  tI  rt^irai  t)  iTriovaa,  Acts  xvi.,  11; 
XX.,  15  ;  xxi.,  18)  and  elsewhere  (e.  g.,  Polyb.,  ii.,  25, 11 ;  Pausan.,  iv.,  22, 3 ; 
Plut. ,  il/or. ,  205  E,  838  t>,  etc.).  See  also  the  references  in  Lobeck,  Phryn., 
p.  464.  From  this  word,  which  had  become  practically  a  substantive,  the 
adjective  tTriovaiog  would  be  formed  in  the  usual  way. 

It  is  urged,  indeed  (see  Suicer,  Thes.,  s.  v.  tiztovaioQ),  that  the  analogy  of 
SivTtpcnoc,  rpi-aXoc,  etc.,  would  require  iiriovaaloQ.  In  replying  to  this  ob- 
jection we  need  not  (I  venture  to  think)  acquiesce  in  the  negative  answer 
that  such  adjectives  are  not  valid  to  disprove  the  existence  of  a  different 
form  in  -ioq.  Whether  we  regard  the  etymolygy  or  the  meaning,  the  analogy 
seems  to  be  false.  The  termination  -aXoc  in  all  these  adjectives  is  suggested 
by  the  long  a  or  >j  of  the  feminines  from  which  they  are  derived,  Stvrepa, 
rpiTj],  etc.  ;*  and  the  short  ending  of  iiriovaa  is  not  a  parallel  case.  More- 
over, the  meaning  is  not  the  same  ,•  for  the  adjectives  in  -alog  fix  a  date,  e.g., 
TiTapraTog  t]X9ii\  "  he  came  on  the  fourth  day"  whereas  the  sense  which  we 
require  here  is  much  more  general,  implying  simply  possession  or  connection. 

Or,  again,  the  word  might  be  derived  from  the  masculine  participle  tmiov, 
as  tKoiicFiog  fi'om  tKwv,  WtKovcxiog  from  WtXtxyv,  ycpovaiog  from  y'tpuiv,  izvyovai- 
OQ  from  Tivyt'ov,  'Axtpovaiog  (or  'Axipov-iog)  from  'Axip^jv,  etc. :  see  Lobeck, 
Phryn.,  p.  4.  To  this  derivation  there  is  no  grammatical  objection.  Only 
it  may  be  pleaded  that  no  motive  existed  for  introducing  an  adjective  by  the 
side  of  iiriMv  sufficiently  powerful  to  produce  the  result  in  an  advanced  stage 
of  the  language,  when  the  fertility  of  creating  new  forms  had  been  greatly 
impaired. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  derivation  of  tTnovaiog  from  ini  and  ovma,  if  not 
impossible,  is  at  least  more  difficult.  Two  objections  have  been  taken  to  this 
etymology — the  one,  as  it  seems  to  me,  futile  ;  the  other  really  formidable,  if 
not  insuperable.  (1.)  It  is  alleged  that  an  adjective  in  -oiimog  would  not  be 
formed  from  the  substantive  ova'ia.  To  this  it  is  sufiicient  to  reply,  that  from 
this  very  word  obtria  we  find  the  compounds  avovaiog  (Clem.  Alex.,^xc. 
Theod.,  p.  970,  ed.  Potter  ;  Pseudo-Justin,  Conf.  dogm.  Arist.,  §  50,  p.  145  ; 
ib.,  QucESt.  Christ,  ad  Gent.,  p.  185  b),  ivovaiog  (Victorin.,  c.  Avium,  y.,  1 ; 
Synes.,  Hymn. ,  2,  p.  318 ;  Cyril.  Alex.,  in  Joann.,\.,5,  p.  527), ivovaiog  (Philo, 
in  Flacc,  §  10,  ii.,  p.  528,  Mang.),  irepovmog  {irepovffiujg,  Forphyr.  in  Stob., 
Ji'cl.  Phys.,  41,  ii.,  p.  822),  fiovovcnog,  ofioovcriog,  vTnpovaiog  (Victorin.,  1.  c. ; 
Synes.,  1.  c),  irpoavovaiog  (SjTies.,  Hymn.,  1.  c,  and  Hymn.,  3,  p.  322),  etc. ; 
and  from  l^ovma  the  compounds  uhrt^ovaiog  (frequently,  e.  g.,Diod.,  xiv., 

*  It  is  not  meant  to  assert  that  forms  in  aio9  can  not  be  derived  from  other  words 
than  feminines  in  J  or  tj ;  but,  as  a  rule,  they  are  derived  in  this  M'ay,  though  some  ex- 
ceptions occur:  see  Buttmann, ^«.s/.  Gramvi.,  ii.,  p.  44G. 


166    LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISIOX  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

105)  and  vin^ovaiOQ  (see  Staph.,  Tlies.,  s.  v.,  ed.Dindorf  and  Hase).  (2.)  On 
the  other  hand,  to  the  objection  that  the  form  should  1)6  tTrovmoc,  not  t-movai- 
of,  I  do  not  see  what  vaUd  answer  can  be  given.  It  has  been  thought  suflS- 
cient  to  adduce  in  reply  such  words  as  tinavcavu), iiriovpa,  i-moaaoiiai,  which., 
however,  are  confined  to  poetry ;  and,  again,  tTruiKljc,  tTriopKoi;,*  which  occur 
also  in  prose.  To  this  list  other  words  might  be  added,  such  as  tTrifXTrroe, 
iiriivvv^u,  tTritjpa,  (Truipavog,  iiruvfiitjv,  iTTucmop.  But  the  maintainers  of  this 
view  have  never  incjuired  why  the  i  of  tTr/,  which  elsewhere  is  elided,  has  been 
exceptionally  retained  in  such  instances.  The  real  fact  is,  that  all  these 
words,  without  exception,  were  originally  Avritten  with  the  digamma,  t-ifav- 
cdvit),  tTriPtLKijc,  tirifiK-KTOQ,  tirifopKog,  etc.,  so  that  elision  was  out  of  the 
question  ;  and  even  when  the  digamma  disappeared  in  pronunciation  or  was 
replaced  by  a  simple  aspirate,  the  old  forms  maintained  their  ground. 

In  the  present  instance  no  such  reason  can  be  pleaded  to  justify  the  reten- 
tion of  the  (.  The  derivation  of  i~iovaiOQ  from  iiri,  ovaia,  can  only  be  main- 
tained on  the  hypothesis  that  its  form  was  determined  by  false  analogies,  with 
a  view  to  exhibiting  its  component  parts  more  clearly.  But  this  hypothesis 
is  not  permissible  if  any  other  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  word  can  he 
given  ;  for  tTriovmoQ  would  then  be  the  single  exception  to  the  rule  which  de- 
termines compounds  of  iiri.  In  fact,  the  compound  trrovaiujciic  is  found  oc- 
casionally, thus  showing  that  the  final  vowel  of  the  preposition  is  naturally 
elided  before  ovala. 

§  2.  The  Requirements  of  (he  Sense. 

It  has  been  shown  that  etymological  considerations  favor  the  root  Itvai  as 
against  ilvai.  It  will  be  necessary,  in  the  next  place,  to  ask  whether  the  ex- 
igencies of  the  sense  require  us  to  reverse  the  decision  to  which  etymology  has 
led  us.  Is  there  really  any  solid  objection  to  our  taking  tov  dprov  i'ihujv  top 
tTnoixTiov  to  mean  "our  bread  for  the  coming  day  ?" 

One  objection,  and  one  only,  is  urged  repeatedly  against  this  explanation. 
The  petition  so  explained,  it  is  thought,  would  be  a  direct  violation  of  the  pre- 
cept which  our  Lord  gives  at  the  close  of  the  chapter,  vi.,  34,  /xi)  ovv  fiepiftvlj- 
(TijTE  eig  T>)v  avpioi'.f  To  this  I  would  reply,  ^first,  that  though  twiovaa  is 
most  frequently  a  synonym  for  »)  avpiov,  yet  the  words  are  not  coextensive 
in  meaning.  If  the  prayer  were  said  in  the  evening,  no  douht  >)  iwiovaa 
would  be  "the  following  day,  the  morrow;"  but  supposing  it  to  be  used  at 
or  before  dawn,  the  word  would  designate  the  day  then  bre.iking.  Thus,  in 
the  EcclesiazusaB  of  Aristophanes,  one  of  the  speakers,  after  describing  the 
time  (ver.  20),  Kairoi  Trpog  6p9pov  y  tariv, "  'tis  close  on  daybreak,"  exclaims 
(ver.  105),  vi]  ti)v  tviovaav  t/ixkpai',  where  rriv  avpiov  would  be  quite  out  of 
place.  This  instance  shows  the  different  power  of  the  two  words,  which  in 
some  aspects  may  be  said  to  contrast  with  each  other ;  for  the  one  implies 

*  tTrio^Soor  is  also  adduced ;  but  in  the  only  passage  quoted  for  this  form,  Plat., 
Tim.,  36  A,  B,  the  best  editions  have  the  usual  form  eTroyioor. 

t  It  is  astonishing  to  see  with  what  persistence  this  worthless  argument  is  repeat- 
ed. I  find  it,  for  instance,  in  two  of  the  most  recent  theological  books  which  have  come 
into  my  hands,  written  from  directly  opposite  points  of  view:  Delitzsch,  Brief  an  die 
R'mier  in  das  Hebruische  icbersetzt,  p.  27  ^1870),  and  Keim,  Geschichte  Jesu  von  Aazara, 
li.,  p.  279  ^1871). 


APPENDIX.  167 

time  approaching,  and  the  other  time  deferred.  But,  secondly  (and  this  seems 
to  be  a  complete  answer  to  the  objection),  this  argument,  if  it  proves  any 
thing,  proves  too  much.  If  the  command  fjn)  fitpt^ivdv  is  tantamount  to  a 
prohibition  against  prayer  for  the  object  about  which  we  are  forbidden  to  be 
anxious,  then  not  only  must  we  not  pray  for  to-moiTow's  food,  but  we  must 
not  pray  for  food  at  all.  For  he  who  says  (ver.  34)  /.it]  /.upifivijaiire  hi;  t))v 
avpiov,  says  also  (ver.  25)  /uy  fieptfivan  ry  i^vxj/  vfiuJv  rl  (pdyTjrs;  and  on 
this  showing,  whatever  interpretation  we  put  upon  iiriovmov,  a  precept  will  be 
violated.  The  fact  is,  that,  as  fifpij-iva  means  anxiety,  undue  thought  or  care 
(see  above,  p.  145  seq.),  prayer  to  God  is  not  only  consistent  with  the  absence 
of  fiipij-iva,  but  is  a  means  of  driving  it  away.  One  apostle  tells  us  (1  Pet.  v. , 
7)  to  "cast  all  our  anxiety  {fikpiiiva)  on  God,  for  he  careth  (avT<f  /.uXei)  for 
us."  Another  directs  us  "  not  to  be  anxious  about  any  matter  (i.ir]Stv  ^wtpiju- 
va-i),  but  in  every  thing,  with  prayer  and  supplication  joined  with  thanksgiv- 
ing, to  make  our  desires  known  unto  God"'  (Phil,  iv.,  G).  These  injunctions 
we  fulfill  when  we  use  the  petition  in  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  a  proper  spirit. 
At  the  same  time,  even  in  our  prayers  we  are  directed  specially  to  the  needs 
of  "the  coming  day,"  for  in  the  very  act  of  asking  for  distant  material  bless- 
ings there  is  danger  of  exciting  in  ourselves  this  nipijiva  which  it  is  our  duty 
to  crush.* 

On  the  other  hand,  if  tTrtovmov  be  derived  from  tTri,  ov<ria,we  have  the 
choice  Between  the  two  senses  of  ovaia,  (1 .)  "subsistence,"  and  (2.)  "  essence, 
being. "  Of  these  the  latter  must  be  rejected  at  once.  It  is  highly  improba- 
ble that  a  teim  of  transcendental  philosophy  should  have  been  chosen,  and  a 
strange  compound  invented  for  insertion  in  a  prayer  intended  for  ever3'-day 
use.  Indeed,  nothing  could  well  be  conceived  more  alien  to  the  simplicity  of 
the  Gospel-teaching  than  such  an  expression  as  iinovaioq,  meaning  "suited 
to,"  or  "conducive  to  the  ovala,  the  essential  being."  If,  therefore,  this  deri- 
vation from  ovaia  is  tenable  at  all,  we  must  be  prepared  to  assign  to  it  the 
more  homely  meaning  "subsistence,"  so  that  'nnovaioQ  will  be  "sufficient 
to  sustain  ns,"  "enough  for  our  absolute  wants,  but  not  enough  for  luxury." 
Such  a  sense  in  itself  would  meet  the  requirements  of  the  passage.  Only  it 
does  not  seem  likely  that  a  strange  word,  which  anlves  at  this  meaning  in  an 
indirect  way,  should  have  been  invented  to  express  a  very  simple  idea  for 
which  the  Greek  language  had  already  more  than  one  equivalent.  Nor,  in- 
deed, is  it  a  natural  sense  for  the  word  to  bear.  In  Porphyr.,  Isag.,  16,  and 
elsewhere,  tTrovrnwotjc  is  used  to  signify  accidental  as  opposed  to  essential, 
denoting  what  is  superadded  to  the  ovuia;  and  if  such  a  compound  as  Linov- 
moQ  (from  ovaia)  were  possible,  it  ought  to  have  a  similar  meaning. 

§  3.  The  Tenor  of  Tradition. 
Hitherto  we  have  seen  no  sufficient  reason  for  abandoning  the  derivation 
from  ikvai,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  serious  difficulties  are  encountered  by 

*  The  moral  bearing  of  this  petition  is  well  put  by  St  Basil  (Reg.  brev.  tract,  cclii., 
ii.,  p.  500),  though  he  wrongly  interprets  the  word  itself:  6  ipyal^oiievof  fxn^tJioveviov  toZ 

Kvpiov  \iyovroi  Mij  nepi/xvare  Ttj  ylivxij  vixwv  Tt  <pdiriT€  h  ^i  ^'ITe  .  .  .  Tov  tTriovtrtoir  iifjTOv, 
■tovrioTi  tov  irpoi  t'ijv  e<pijfj.6pov  ?ci)i;v  Trj  ovaia  t]fiCot'  xp>)atlJtivovTa,  oix  eavTW  entTpiirei  iiWci 
tif  0e<f  ivrvyx'i*'^'  irept  tovtov,  k.t.\. 


1 68    LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  X.  TEST. 

adopting  the  alternative,  and  deriving  the  word  from  tlvai.  It  remains  to 
inquire  how  far  this  result  is  borne  out  by  tradition. 

Tholuck,  discussing  the  two  derivations  of  tTriovcio^,  from  tlvai  and  Itvai 
respectiveh',  states,  "Tlie  oldest  and  most  widely  spread  is  the  former;"  and 
Suicer,  mentioning  the  derivation  from  j)  tiriovaa,  adds,  "Nemo  ex  veteribus 
ita  explicat."  I  hope  to  show  that  such  statements  are  the  very  reverse  of 
the  truth ;  that,  so  far  as  our  evidence  goes,  the  derivation  from  livai  is  de- 
cidedl}'  the  more  ancient ;  and  that,  though  the  other  prevailed  widely  among 
Gi'eek  interpreters  after  Origen,  yet  it  never  covered  so  wide  an  area  as  its 
elder  rival.  I  shall  take  the  great  divisions  of  the  Church  as  distinguished 
by  tlieir  several  languages,  and  investigate  the  traditional  sense  assigned  to 
the  word  in  each. 

].  In  the  Greek  Church  the  first  testimony  is  that  of  Origex  {De  Orat., 
27, 1.  c.).  He  himself  derives  the  Mord  from  ovaia,  adducing  inpiomioc  as 
an  analogy.  This  analogy,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  false ;  for,  whereas 
ini  loses  the  final  vowel  in  composition,  Trtpl  retains  it ;  so  that  while  the  one 
compound  would  be  mpiovaioi:,  the  other  would  be  Ittovoioc.  Thus  derived, 
the  word  signifies,  according  to  Origen,  -iv  ilt;  -i)v  ovaiav  yjiuiv  avfij5a\k6nt- 
vov  apTov.  It  is  the  spiritual  bread  which  nourishes  the  spiritual  being,  6  Ty 
<^vaii  T>j  Xoyucij  Ka-aWjjXoTarog  icai  t?J  ovai(^i  avry  avyytvt'jg,  k.t.X.  This  view 
Origen  supports  by  quoting  other  passages  where  the  heavenly  bread  is  men- 
tioned, and  at  the  close  of  the  discussion  he  adds  (p.  249  c),  "  Some  one  will 
say  that  tTnovaiov  is  formed  \\.  KanaxnuaTiaOai]  from  tTriivai;  so  that  we 
are  bidden  to  ask  for  the  bread  which  belongs  to  the  future  life  (jbv  oIkHov 
Tov  fiiWovTog  atwvog~),  that  God  may  anticipate  and  give  it  to  us  even  now, 
so  that  what  shall  be  given  as  it  were  to-morrow  may  be  given  to  us  to-day 
(uiffTe  TO  oiovii  avpiov  doOijaofitvov  ffiifispov  i]iuv  ^oGiji'ai) ;  the  future  life  be- 
ing represented  by  to-morrow,  and  the  present  by  to-day ;  but  the  former  ac- 
ceptation is  better  in  my  judgment,  etc."  Thus  the  eai'liest  notice  among 
Greek-speaking  Christians  reveals  a  conflict  between  the  two  derivations.  It 
is  true  that  in  either  case  Origen  contemplates  a  spiritual  rather  than  a  literal 
interpretation  of  the  bread,  but  this  fact  accords  with  the  general  principles 
of  the  Alexandrian  school  from  which  the  notice  emanates,  for  this  school  is 
given  to  importing  a  mystical  sense  into  the  simjile  language  of  the  Gospel. 
This  ulterior  question  does  not  affect  the  derivation  of  the  word. 

So  for  as  I  am  acquainted  with  the  language  of  Origen  elsewhere,  his  mode 
of  speaking  here  is  quite  consistent  with  the  supposition  that  he  himself  first 
started  the  derivation  from  tlvai,  ovaia.  At  all  events,  this  supposition  ac- 
cords with  his  fondness  for  importing  a  reference  to  "absolute  being"  into 
the  language  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists  elsewhere,  as,  for  instance,  when 
he  interprets  rolg  ayiotc  rolr  ovutv  (omitting  the  words  tv  'E^so-y)  in  Ephes. 
i.,  1,  and  'iva  ra  ovra  Karapyr]ay  in  1  Cor.  i.,  28,  in  this  sense  (see  Cramer's 
Catena  on  Ephes.,  1.  c).  A  derivation  which  transferred  the  word  iTnoicriog 
at  once  from  the  domain  of  the  material  to  the  domain  of  the  suprasensual 
would  have  a  strong  attraction  for  Origen's  mind.  Still,  it  must  remain  a 
pure  hypothesis  that  he  himself  invented  this  deiivation.  He  may  have  got 
it  from  one  of  his  predecessors,  Pantcenus  or  Clement ;  but,  at  all  events,  it 
bears  the  impress  of  the  Alexandrian  school.     On  the  other  hand,  his  own 


APPEXDIX.  169 

language  shows  that  the  other  etymology  (from  tTrdvai)  had  its  supporters. 
How  few  or  how  numerous  they  were,  the  vagueness  of  his  expression  will 
not  allow  us  to  speculate.  It  is  only  when  we  come  to  the  versions  that  we 
find  sohd  ground  for  assuming  that  in  the  earliest  age  this  was  the  prevailing 
view. 

The  next  Greek  writer  whose  opinion  is  known  was  also  an  Alexandrian. 
The  great  Athanasius  (De  Licarn.,  §  IG,  i.,  p.  TOG)  derives  the  word  from 
f7riEi'a(,but  gives  it  a  theological  meaning:  "Elsewhere  he  calls  the  Holy 
Spirit  heavenly  bread,  saying,  Give  us  this  day  tuv  ciprov  ij^iwv  tuv  imovaiov,* 
for  he  taught  us  in  his  prayer  to  ask  in  the  present  life  for  riv  i-iriovcnov  ciprov, 
that  is,  the  future,  whereof  we  have  the  first-fruits  in  the  present  life,  partak- 
ing of  it  thi'ought  the  flesh  of  the  Lord,  as  he  himself  said,  The  bread  which  I 
shall  give  is  mij  flesh,  etc."  This  is  exactly  the  account  of  the  word  which 
Origen  rejects. 

To  those,  however,  who  have  studied  the  early  history  of  Biblical  intei^pre- 
tation,  it  v.ill  be  no  surprise  to  find  that  Origen's  explanation  of  this  word  ex- 
erted a  very  wide  and  lasting  influence.  It  is  a  common  phenomenon  to  find 
nearly  all  the  Greek  expositors  following  him,  even  in  cases  where  his  inter- 
pretation is  almost  demonstrably  wrong.  If  his  explanations  had  the  good 
fortune  to  be  adopted  by  the  Antiochene  school,  as  was  frequently  the  case, 
they  passed  unchallenged,  and  established  themselves  in  the  Church  at  large. 
In  this  particular  instance  the  procedure  of  the  Antiochene  school  would  ap- 
pear to  have  been  characteristic,  both  in  its  agreement  with  and  in  its  de- 
parture from  Origen.  While  accepting  his  derivation,  they  seem  to  have 
substituted  a  realistic  for  his  mystical  sense  of  aproQ  iiriovaiog.  The  adjec- 
tive, thus  explained, becomes  "for  our  material  subsistence,"  and  not  "for 
our  spiritual  being. "  > 

The  views  of  the  earliest  representatives  of  the  Antiochene  school  on  this 
point  are  not  recorded.  But  they  may  perhaps  be  assumed  not  only  from  the 
general  tenor  of  later  interpretations  in  this  school  (from  Chrysostom  down- 
«ard,),  but  also  from  the  opinions  of  the  Cappadocian  fiithers. 

In  the  treatise  of  Gregory  Nyssen,  De  Orat.  Domin.,  iv.,  i.,  p.  745,  this 
view  is  stated  very  explicitly :  "We  are  ordered,"  he  says,  "to  ask  for  what 
is  sufficient  for  the  preservation  of  our  bodily  subsistence  (jb  npoc  ti)v  awri)- 
pT]aiv  Tijg  awfiaTiKTig  ovaiag)."  The  same  interpretation  is  adopted  by 
his  brother  Basil  (Rerj.  hrev.  tract.,  cclii.,  ii.,  p.  500),  who  explains  t'ov  ittiov- 
mov  aprov  as  that  "which  is  serviceable  for  our  daily  life  for  our  subsistence 
{jbv  irpoQ  Tt]v  h(pr]fiipov  c,m)v  ry  oiiaia  iffiwv  xprjaiiievovTa)."  The  same  der- 
ivation, though  not  quite  the  same  meaning,  is  assigned  to  it  also  by  Cyril 
OF  Jerusalem,  Catech.,  xxiii.  {Mystag.,  v.),  15,  p.  329  :  "  This  holy  bread  is 
tTTiovmoQ,  being  appointed  for  the  subsistence  (or  substance)  of  the  soul  (tiri 
Ti]v  oiiaiav  rijg  ipi^x*)?  Kararaaaontvog').    This  bi'ead  does  not  go  into  thebel- 

•  The  Benedictine  editor  translates  iinovciov  here  by  supersubstantialem  after  Je- 
rome, though  the  contest  of  St.  Athanasius  is  directly  against  this.  At  the  same  time, 
Athannsiiis  arrives  at  the  same  mystical  meaning  of  t6v  apTov  rov  emovaiov  as  Jerome, 
though  through  a  difFereut  derivation. 

t  dta  is  absent  from  some  texts,  but  seems  to  be  correct.  If  it  is  omitted,  the  sense 
will  be  "  partaking  of  the  flesh." 


170    LlGHTFOOT  ON  A  FEESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

ly,  nor  is  it  cast  out  into  the  draught,  but  is  distributed  into  the  whole  of  thy 
complex  frame  (fi'c  Traaav  aov  tt]v  avaraaiv  dvaSiSoTui)  for  the  benefit  of 
body  and  soul;"  where  an  application  chiefly,  though  not  exclusively  spirit- 
ual, is  given  to  ovaia.  Again,  St.  Chrtsostom,  De  Ang.  Port.,  etc.,  b,*  iii., 
p.  35,  interprets  iTriovniov  "  which  passes  to  the  substance  of  the  body  (Jtirl 
TTjv  ovaiav  rov  aih^iaroQ  ciafiaivovTo),  and  is  able  to  compact  (avyKpoTijaai) 
this ;"  but  elsewhere,  in  his  Homily  on  St.  John  (xliii.,  §  2,  viii.,  p.  2.57),  he 
explains  tov  uprov  tov  iTnovalov,  tovt'kjti,  tov  KaQr)ixipivov  ;  while  on  St.  Mat- 
thew, where  the  passage  itself  occurs,  he  expresses  himself  in  such  a  vague 
way  as  if  he  were  purposely  evading  a  diflficulty  (xix.,  §  5,  vii..  p.  251  seq.), 
Ti  tan  TOV  dprov  tov  iTnovctov  ;  tov  icpiifitpov  .  .  .  SeiTai  [>/  (pvaic]  Tpo(pr)C  Trig 
c'lvayKaiaq  .  .  .  vn'tp  apTov  fiovov  'iKiXtuaf.  Tt)v  ti'X^v  Troifiadai,  Kai  VTrip  dprov 
tov  t^Tjuipov,  uffTe  /i»)  inrtp  rt}Q  avpiov  jitpifivdv  tid  tovto  npoaiOrfKe,  tov  dp- 
Tov  TOV  iTTiovaiov,  TOVTicfTi,  rbv  t<pi]fiepov  Kal  ovSk  tovtijj  i)pKka9t}  t(^  pf]fiaTi 
dXXd  Kai  'irtpov  {.UTd  tovto  TrpoatOfjKiv,  iIttuv,  Soq  iifxiv  (jij/xepov  wars  ftij  7n- 
paiTipu)  (7vvTpif3tiv  iavroi'c  tjj  (ppovrici  rFjg  tiriovaijg  I'lfiipag,  where  he  shelters 
himself  under  the  vagueness  of  t0i7/i(fpoe  without  explaining  how  he  arrives  at 
this  meaning,  and  where  the  somewhat  ambiguous  words  "not  to  afflict  oxxv- 
&e\.\Gs  further  with  the  thought  of  the  coming  (t7riov(Tt]g)  day"  seem  to  allow, 
if  not  to  suggest,  the  derivation  from  tiriovaa.  In  a  later  passage  of  the  same 
Homilies  (Iv.,  §  5,  p.  5(i2),  and  in  his  Exposition  of  Psalm  cxxvii.  (v.,  p.  364), 
he  again  quotes  this  petition,  but  avoids  an  explanation ;  in  his  Homilies  on 
Genesis  (liv.,  §  5,  iv.,  p.  530  seq.)  he  adduces  it  as  setting  the  proper  limits 
to  our  desire  for  temporal  goods,  tov  dpTov  ijjiCJv  tov  i-jviovaiov  £bg  ijfxiv  oljfie- 
pov,  dvri  TOV,  t))v  rm  yi^ipag  Tpo<pi]v  ;  while  on  PhiHppians  iv.,  19  {Hom.sx., 
§  4,  xi.,  p.  31 G),  commenting  on  the  words  Tz\r}pwati  itdaav  xptiav  vfiHv,  he 
adds  "  so  as  not  to  be  in  want,  but  to  have  what  is  needful  (rd  irpbg  xptiai/), 
for  Christ  also  put  this  in  his  prayer  when  teaching  us  tov  dprov  ti/iuiv  tov 
tTTiovatov  Sog  yfiiu.atjfifpov."  Thus  he  seems  throughout  to  be  wavering  be- 
tween the  meanings  daili/  and  necessary,  i.e.,  between  the  dei-ivations  from 
tivai  and  ilvm,  though  he  tends  towards  the  latter.  Again,  Theodoret,  on 
Phil,  iv.,  19,  following  Chrysostom,  quotes  this  petition  as  warranting  St.Paul 
in  asking  for  his  converts  t)jv  kotu  tov  irapovTa  (iiov  xpt^nv. 

Somewhat  later,  Cyril  of  Alexaxdri.\,  on  Luke  xi.,  3  {Mai,  ii.,  p.s266), 
thus  comments  on  linovmov :  "  Some  say  that  it  is  that  which  shall  come  and 
shall  be  given  in  the  future  life;  ....  but  if  this  were  true,  ....  why 
do  they  add.  Give  vs  day  by  day  ?  For  one  may  see  likewise  by  these  words 
that  they  make  their  petition  for  daily  food ;  and  we  must  understand  by 
iTTiovaiov  what  is  sufficient  {tov  avTcipKr)),  etc."t 

Later  Greek  wiiters  contented  themselves  with  repeating  one  or  more  of  the 
interpretations  given  by  their  predecessors.  Thus  Damascene  {Orthod.  Fid., 
iv.,  13,  i.,  p.  272,  Lequien)  says,  ovTog  6  dprog  ioTiv  t)  dirapxt]  tov  fikWovrog 
dpTov,  bg  toTiv  6  tiriovaiog'  to  yap  tTriovaiov  SrjXol  f)  tov  fitXXovTa,TovTe(TTi,  tov 
Toij  fitXXovTog  aiwvog,  fi  tov  npbg  mjvnjptjffiv  rijg  ovaiag  ifjiwv  Xa/ifSavofievov ; 

*  It  is  right  to  mention  that  the  authorship  of  this  Homily  has  heen  questioned. 
See  the  Preface  in  Montfaucon's  edition. 

t  In  Glaphyr.  in  Exod.,  ii.,  i.,  p.  2S6,  ed.  Auberti,  he  explains  this  petition  as  equiva- 
lent to  asking  for  rd  elr  ?ui>;i'  eTTiTijdem. 


APPENDIX.  jHj 

and  Theophtlact  (on  Luke  xi.,  3)  explains  it  tov  tiri  ti)  ovaiq.  yfiibv  Kai  ->) 
avaraau  t))q  Zi^ijs  av/il3aW6i.in'ov,  ou  tov  Triptrrvi'  TrdvTujg  aWd  tov  civay- 
Kolov  (see  also  on  Matt,  vi.,  11).* 

2.  From  the  Aramaic  Christians,  the  testimony  in  favor  of  the  derivation 
from  tTTuvai  is  stronger. 

We  learn  from  St.  Jerome  (in  Matth.  vi.,  11,  A-ii.,  p.  34)  that  in  the  Gospel 
ACCORDING  TO  THE  HEBREWS  the  word  tTTiovaiov,  whicli  he  translated  "su- 
persubstantialem,"  was  rendered  by  Mahar  ("liT^),  "  quod  dicitur  crastimim, 
ut  sit  sensus,  Panem  nostrum  crastimnn,  id  est  futurum,  da  7iobis  Jtodie." 

Whatever  view  be  adopted  of  the  origin  of  this  apocryphal  Gospel,  its  evi- 
dence has  the  highest  value  in  this  particular  instance.  Of  its  great  antiquity 
no  question  can  be  entertained.  It  can  hardly  have  been  written  much  later 
I  ban  the  close  of  the  first  century.  It  was  regarded  as  an  authoritative  docu- 
ment by  the  Judaizing  Christians  of  Palestine.  It  adhered  very  closely  to  the 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  and  was  even  thought  by  some  to  be  the  Hebrew  (i.  e., 
Aramaic)  original  of  this  Gospel,  though  the  variations  are  too  considerable 
to  admit  this  simple  solution.  On  the  whole,  we  may  conclude  with  high  prob- 
ability that  its  traditions  were  not  derived  through  the  Greek,  but  came  from 
some  Aramaic  source  or  sources — whether  from  an  oral  Gospel,  or  from  writ- 
ten notes  put  together  for  catechetical  purposes,  or  from  the  Aramaic  copy  of 
St.  Matthew's  Gospel  altered  to  suit  the  purposes  of  the  writer.  But,  even  if 
it  were  derived  from  our  Greek  Gospels,  its  interpretation  of  tTrtoucnov  would. 
still  have  the  greatest  weight  as  proceeding  from  Palestine  at  this  very  early 
date.  In  a  familiar  expression  in  the  most  fomiliar  of  all  the  evangelical  rec- 
ords, it  is  not  unreasonable  to  assume  that  the  tradition  would  be  preserved 
at  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age  unimpaired  in  the  vernacular  language  of  our 
Lord  and  his  disciples.  + 

From  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  we  turn  to  another  Aramaic 
source,  emanating  from  a  difieren^:  quarter,  the  Curetonian  Syriac  Version 
of  the  New  Testament. 

In  Matt,  vi.,  11,  this  version  has  : 

.^  .SCO  r^rTdOLk.T  r^AA=qr^  ^^oojAo 

"  And-our-bread  continual  of-the-day  give-to-us." 
In  Luke  xi.,  3  : 

.^oA^n  r<'.li93T<'  rtflsojA  ^  ^eno 

"  And-give  to-us  the-bread  continual  of-everj-day." 
Here  the  temporal  sense  "continual,"  given  to  tiriomiov,  connects  it  with 
iirikvai,  whether  through  iTriovaa,  "for  the  coming  day,"  and  so  "daily,  con- 
stant," or,  more  directly,  "ever  coming,"  and  so  "  perpetual."! 

*  A  number  of  different  interpretations  are  huddled  together  by  au  anonymous 
writer  in  Origen,  Op.  1.,  p.  910  (ed.  Delarue). 

t  It  is  unnecessary  here  to  discuss  the  question  to  what  extent  Greek  was  spoken 
in  Palestine  at  the  Christian  era.  Even  if,  with  Dr.  Roberts,  in  his  instructive  work, 
Disai88ions  <m  the  Gosjieh,  we  take  the  view  that  the  Palestinian  Jews  were  bi-liugual, 
the  argument  in  the  text  wi)l  still  hold  good. 

t.  Cureton  compares  Numbers,  oh.  iv.,  v.  7,  T^^rtt  WlPj  translated  in  the  Syriac 


172    LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FBESII  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

When,  however,  we  turn  from  the  Curetonian  to  the  later  re^nsion,  the  Pe- 
SHiTO  Syriac,  we  find  that  the  influence  of  the  Greek  interpreters  has  been 
at  work  meanwhile.  The  word  "necessary"  is  substituted  for  "constant," 
the  qualitative  sense  for  the  temporal,  i.e.,  the  derivation  from  tivai  for  the 
derivation  from  ikvai. 

In  Matt,  vi.,  11  of  this  version,  the  petition  runs, 

.r^i=QCU    ^ixDCjao.!   (^j^oaA   A   oeo 

"Give  to-us  the-bread  of-our-necessity  this-day." 
In  Luke  xi.,  3  : 

.^cui^    ^i£Lic\xio.i   r^.=nLuX    A    .=30ra 

"Give  to-us  the-bread  of-our-necessity  every-day." 
This  is  only  one  of  the  many  instances  where  the  Peshito  betrays  the  influ- 
ences of  the  fourth  century  whether  in  the  text  or  in  the  interpretation.* 

In  the  still  later  IIarclean  Version  (A.D.  G16),  again,  this  same  inter- 
pretation is  adopted  in  both  passages,  though  slightly  varied  in  form. 

In  Matt,  vi.,11 : 

"  The-bread  of-us  that  necessary  give  to-us  this-day." 
In  Luke  xi.,  3: 

"The-bread  of-necessity  of-us  give  to-us  this-day  :'' 

with  a  V.  1.  t^'j^CV*  A'^SIT    <\Wt  (i-e.,  to  kuQ'  yftipav)  for  f^LlSQAa 

(aiifiipov). 

Again,  the  Jerusalem  Stkiac,  which  was  perhaps  translated  from  a  Greek 
Lectionary,  and  can  hardly  be  earlier  than'  the  5th  century,  also  appears  to 
derive  iiriovaioQ  from  tlvai,  ohma,h\xt  gives  it  a  diff'erent  sense,  apparently 
confusing  it  with  7rspiovaioc,as  St.  Jerome  does. 

In  Matt,  vi.,11,  it  has, 

"  Our-bread  of-opulence  (or  "abundance")  give  to-us  this-day"  (i., p  234, ed. 
Miniscalchi-Enzzo).  The  corresponding  passage  m  St.  Luke  is  not  extant 
in  this  version. 

Thus  among  the  Aramaic  Christians,  the  earliest  tradition,  which  has  reach- 
ed us  by  two  distinct  channels,  connects  the  word  with  imfvai;  while  in  the 
later  versions,  after  the  influence  of  the  Greek  interpreters  had  made  itself 
felt,  this  traditional  sense  has  been  displaced  by  the  derivation  from  ovala. 

It  will  be  seen  hereafter  how  the  later  rendering  substituted  by  St.  Jerome 
failed  to  suppress  the  traditional  quotidianum  of  the  Old  Latin.     In  the  same 

OV«r^LlA^99r^  f^.^'&jjA'  His  own  speculations  respecting  the  original  read- 
lug  lu  St.  Matthew  seem  both  unnecessary  and  untenable. 

*  Prof.  Wright  informs  me  that  he  has  not  found  any  variation  in  the  earliest  MSS. 
of  the  Peshito  in  the  British  Museum  belonging  to  the  5th,  6th,  and  7th  centuries. 


APPENDIX.  173 

way  the  T<^i->sqr^  of  the  Old  (Cnretonian)  Syriac,  though  it  does  not 
show  equal  vitality,  occurs  occasionally,  and  still  survives  long  after  the  later 
revision  of  the  New  Testament,  which  we  call  the  Peshito,  had  superseded 
the  earlier  version  or  versions.  Thus,  in  the  Syriac  recension  of  the  Acts  of 
Thomas — which  must  be  a  very  ancient  work,  for  it  has  a  distinctly  Gnostic 
character — the  Lord's  Prayer  is  quoted  towards  the  end,- and  the  petition  in 
question  runs 

r^^gcu.'?    r«dJL.4S»(<    KISQjA    ^    .acno 

closely  following  this  version.*  Again,  in  one  of  the  poems  of  Jacob  of  Sa- 
rug,  Avho  died  A.D.  521  (Zingerle's  Monumenta  Syriaca,  p.  31,  Innsbriick, 
1869),  it  is  said  of  the  patriarch  Jacob  (see  Gen.  xxviii.,  20;  that  he  "prayed 
the  prayer  which  our  Lord  taught : 

.al  acn  r^JS^cu:i  r€J^Sfif^  r<^:=ajA 

The-bread  continual  of-the-day  give  to-me.  ' 
And  lower  down  he  again  repeats  the  characteristic  words  : 

•rds^a*:?  rdlA-5flf<'  t^spi^i^ 

This  rendering  of  rov  dprov  rov  tTriovaiov  is  found  also  in  an  Exposition  of 
the  Lord's  Prayer  by  the  same  writer,  preserved  in  the  MS.,Brit.Mus.,^(W., 
17,  157  (dated  A.G.  87G=A.D.  565),  in  which  the  expression  is  repeated  not 
less  than  three  times,  fol.  48  a,  i^a.X 

3.  The  testimony  of  the  Egyptian  versions,  again,  is  highly  valuable,  both 
as  preserving  a  very  ancient  tradition  (for  it  would  seem  that  they  must  both 
be  assigned  to  the  close  of  the  second  or  beginning  of  the  third  century),  and 
as  representing  a  distinct  and  isolated  section  of  the  Church. 

The  Memphitic,  the  version  of  LoAver  Egypt,  and  the  Thebaic,  the  ver- 
sion of  L'pper  Egypt,  agree  in  the  derivation  from  itvai ;  and  their  agreement 
is  the  more  valuable,  inasmuch  as  their  general  character  shows  them  to  be 
independent  the  one  of  the  other. 

*  These  Acts  are  fonnd  in  a  British  Museum  MS.,  Add.,  14,  645,  and  have  been  re- 
cently edited  by  Prof.  Wright,  in  his  Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  1S71.  The  text 
of  the  Lord's  Prayer  iu  these  Acts  agrees  generally  with  the  Curetonian  Version  as 
against  the  Peshito. 

t  This  passage  was  pointed  out  to  me  by  Mr.  Bensly,  of  the  Cambridge  University 
Library.  I  had  also  hoped  that  I  might  find  this  petition  quoted  in  the  works  of  one 
of  the  earlier  Syriac  writers,  Aphraates  or  Ephrem,  but  my  search  has  not  been  attend- 
ed with  success.  Au  indirect  reference  in  Ephrem  (Op.,  vi.,  p.  642)  omits  the  word 
in  question. 

"The  bread  of  the  day  shall  suffice  thee,  as  thou  hast  learnt  in  the  Prayer."  At  the 
same  time,  Ephrem  agrees  with  the  Curetonian  against  the  Peshito  in  p^l3l3Cl*S, 
so  that  it  seems  probable  he  used  the  Curetonian  Version.  Prof.  Wright,  at  my  request, 
examined  several  Syriac  Service-books  in  the  British  Museum  Library.  He  reports 
that  all  the  volumes  which  he  examined  are  Jacobite,  and  that  "the  reading  invaria- 
bly agrees  with  the  Peshito  text  of  Matt,  vi.,11.  They  belong  to  the  9th,  10th,  and 
11th  centuries."  t  These  references  were  communicated  to  me  by.  Prof. Wright. 


174   LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N  TEST. 

The  Memphitic  Version  has  : 
In  Matt,  vi.,  11  : 

nGN6ilK   NTCp^CTI    MHiq   N,>>N    M(J)OOY. 

"  Our  bread  of-to-morro\v  give-it  to-us  to-day." 
In  Luke  xi. ,  3  : 

TreNCOIK    £9NH0Y   MHiq  N<\N   MMHNI. 
"Our  bread  tbat-cometh  give-it  to-us  daily." 
The  Thebaic  Version  : 
In  Matt,  vi.,  11  : 

TTCNOeiK   eTNHY   NfTI    MMOq   NAN    M7T00Y. 
'"Our  bread  that-cometh  give-thou  it  to  us  to-day." 
The  corresponding  passage  of  St.Luke  in  this  version  is  not  preserved. 

Here  we  have  a  choice  of  two  translations,  both  founded  on  the  same  deri- 
vation, the  one  through  itrioixja,  the  other  directly  from  tTruvai. 

In  all  the  Coptic  (i.e., Memphitic)  Service-books  which  I  have  seen,  the 
rendering  oftTriovmov  is  NTGp^CTIi  "  of  to-morrow." 

4.  The  Latin  churches  presence  a  still  more  ancient  tradition.  The  Old 
Latin  Version,  which  dates  certainly  from  the  second  century,  and  not  im- 
probably, so  far  as  regards  the  Gospels,  from  the  first  half  of  the  century,  ren- 
ders tTvioi)(jiov  by  quotidianum  in  both  evangelists.  Of  this  rendering  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  It  is  found  in  the  extant  manuscripts  of  the  Old  Latin 
Version  in  both  places.  It  is  quoted,  moreover,  by  the  early  Latin  fathers 
Tertulhan  {De  Orat.,  6)  and  Cyprian  (Z)e  Orat.,  p.  104,  Fell).  Though  both 
these  fathers  are  commenting  especially  on  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  both  adopt 
a  spiritual  sense  of  the  petition,  as  refening  to  Christ  the  living  bread  and  to 
the  eucharistic  feast,  yet  they  comment  on  "  quotidianum"  from  this  point  of 
view,  and  seem  to  be  unaware  that  any  other  rendering  is  possible. 

At  length,  in  the  fourth  century,  the  influence  of  the  scholastic  interpreta- 
tion, put  forward  by  Origen  and  the  Greek  fathers,  makes  itself  felt  in  Latin 
writers.  '  The  first  semblance  of  any  such  influence  is  found  in  Juvencus,  the 
Latin  poet,  who  wrote  a  metrical  history  of  the  Gospel  about  A.D.  330-335. 
He  renders  the  words 

"  Vitalisqne  hodie  sancti  substantia  panis 
Proveniat  nobis." — Evaruj.  Hist.,  i.,  C31. 

Here,  however,  though  the  coincidence  is  curious,  no  inference  can  safely  be 
drawn  from  the  occurrence  of"  substantia,"  since  Juvencus  elsewhere  uses 
the  word  with  a  genitive  as  a  convenient  periphrasis  to  eke  out  his  metre, 
without  any  special  significance  ;  e.  g.,  i. ,  41i>,  "  substantia  panis"  (Matt,  iv., 
4);  i.,  510,  "  salis  substantia"  (Matt,  v.,  13) ;  ii.,  420,  "vocis  substantia" 
(Matt.  ix. ,  32)  ;  ii.,  524,  "animai  substantia"  (Matt,  xi.,  5);  ii.,  G77,  "cre- 
dendi  substantia"  (John  v.,  38)  ;  iii.,  GG8,  "  arboris  substantia"  (Matt,  xxi., 
21). 

In  ViCTORiNus  the  Rhetorician,  who  was  acquainted  with  the  Greek  com- 
mentators, the  first  distinct  traces  of  this  interpretation  in  the  Latin  Church 
are  found.  In  his  treatise  against  Arius,  completed  about  the  year  305,  he 
writes  (i.,  31 ,  Bibl.  Vet.  Patr.,  viii. ,  p.  1 63,  ed.  Galland.) :  "  Unde  deductum 


APPENDIX.  175 

sTTtovaioi'  quam  a  substantia  ?     Da  partem  nobis  iiriovaiov  hodiermim.     Quo- 

niam  Jesus  vita  est,  et  corpus  ipsius  vita  est,  corpus  autem  panis ISig- 

nificat  iniovaiov  ex  ipsa  aut  in  ipsa  substantia,  hoc  est,  vitai  panem."  And 
again  (ii.,  8,  ib.,  p.  177)  :  "  tiriovaiov  dprov,  ex  eadem  ovaia  panem,  id  est,  de 
vita  Dei,  consubstantialem  vitam.  .  .  .  Grtecum  igitur  evangelium  habet  tTri- 
ovaiov,  quod  denominatum  est  a  substantia,  et  utique  Dei  substantia :  hoc 
Latini  vel  non  intelligentes  vel  non  valentes  exprimere  non  potuerunt  dicere, 
ct  tantummodo  quotidianum  posuerunt,  non  tTriovaiov."  Setting  himself  to  de- 
fend tlie  ofioovaiov  of  the  Nicene  Creed  against  the  charge  of  novelty,  Victo- 
vinus  seizes  with  avidity  a  derivation  of  tmovmov  which  furnishes  him  with  a 
sort  of  precedent. 

Again,  in  St.  Amurosb  we  find  distinct  references  to  this  derivation.  In 
a  treatise  ascribed  to  this  father  (De  Sacram.,\.,4:,  §  S-i,  ii.,p.  378)  we  read, 
''Quare  ergo  in  oratione  dominica,  qua;  postea  sequitur,  ait Pcmem  nostrum'^ 
Panem  quidem  sed  kiriovaiov,  hoc  est,  supersubstantialem.  Non  iste  panis 
est  qui  vadit  in  corpus  ;  sed  ille  panis  vitas  ffiternos  qui  animaj  nostra?  substan- 
tiam  fulcit.  Ideo  Grtece  i-rrtovaiog  dicitur  :  Latinus  autem  hunc  panem  quo- 
iidianum  dixit  [quem  Gra^ci  dicunt  advenienteni]  ;*  quia  Grfeci  dicunt  t{\v  hzl- 
oiiaav  t'lfispav  advenientem  diem.  Ergo  quod  Latinus  dixit  et  quod  Grajcus, 
utrumque  utile  videtur.  Groecus  utrumque  uno  sei"mone  significavit,  Latinus 
quotidianum  dixit.  Si  quotidianus  est  panis  cur  post  annum  ilium  sumis,quem- 
admodum  Gra^ci  in  oriente  facere  consuerunt  ?  Accipe  quotidie,  quod  quo- 
tidie  tibi  prosit,  etc."  The  writer  seems  here  to  combine  the  two  derivations 
oi  kiriovciov,  as  though  the  word  could  have  a  double  etymology.  At  least  I 
can  not  interpret  "  Gra;cus  ntrumque  uno  sermone  significavit"  in  any  other 
way.t  The  authorship  of  the  treatise,  however,  is  oi)en  to  question,  as  it  con- 
tains some  suspicious  statements  and  expressions.  But,  ^vhoever  may  have 
been  the  wiiter,  tlie  work  appears  to  be  early.  If  he  owed  the  expression  su- 
persubstantialis  to  St.Jerome's  revision,  as  was  probably  the  case,  even  this 
is  consistent  with  the  Ambrosian  authorship,  as  several  of  his  father's  works 
were  written  after  St.  Jerome  had  completed  the  Gospels. 

Again,  in  an  unquestioned  treatise  of  St.  Ambrose  (De  Fide,  iii.,  15,  §  127, 
ii.,  p.  519), written  in  the  years  377, 378,  this  fixther,  defending  the  word  ufioov- 
atov  against  the  Arians,  uses  the  same  argument  as  Victorinus  :  "An  negare 
possunt  ovaiav  lectam,  cum  et  panem  tTriovaiov  Dominus  dixerit  et  Moyses 
scripserit  dixtlg  tatcOi  jxoi  \atig  Tvipiohaiog  ?  Aut  quid  est  oiiaia,  vel  unde  dicta, 
nisi  ovaa  dtl,  quod  semper  maneat  ?  Qui  enim  est,  et  est  semper,  Deus  est ; 
et  ideo  manens  semper  oixria  dicitur  divina  substantia.  Propterea  tniovaioQ 
panis,  quod  ex  verbi  substantia  substantiam  virtutis  manentis  cordi  et  anim» 
siibministret ;  scriptum  est  enim,  Et  panis  c.onjirmat  cor  hominis  (Psa.  ciii., 
15)."  The  etymological  views  of  a  writer  who  derives  oiiaia  from  ovaa  ad 
can  have  no  value  in  themselves.  The  notice  is  only  important  as  showing 
that  the  derivation  from  ovaia  was  gaining  ground.  At  the  same  time,  like 
the  passage  of  Victorinus,  it  suggests  a  motive  which  would  induce  many  to 

*  The  words  in  brackets  are  omitted  iu  many  MSS.,  and  seem  to  be  out  of  place. 

t  Pfeiffer,  in  the  Thesaur.  Theol.  PhiloL,  ii.,  p.  IIT  (Amstel.,  1702),  explains  "  utrumque 
nno  sermone  significavit"  by  "crastinum  soil,  dicendo,  hodiemum  includens  diem," 
which  seems  to  me  meaningless. 


1 76    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  BEVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 

accept  the  etj-mology  offered,  as  furnishing  a  ready  answer  to  an  Arian  ob- 
jection. 

"When  St.  Jerome  (about  A.D.  383)  revised  the  Latin  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, lie  substituted  sujiersubstaidiulem  for  quotidianum  in  the  text  of  St.Mat- 
thew ;  but,  either  prevented  by  scruples  from  erasing'a  cherished  expression 
from  the  Latin  Bibles,  or  feeling  some  misgiving  about  the  correctness  of  his 
own  rendering,  he  aWow &<\.  qiiotidianum  to  stand  in  St. Luke.  Altogether  his 
language  is  vague  and  undecided  whenever  he  has  occasion  to  mention  the 
word.  In  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  Titus  {Op.,  vii.,  p.  72G),  writ- 
ten about  A.D.  387,  he  thus  expresses  himself:  "  Unde  et  illud,  quod  in  evan- 
gelio  secundum  Latinos  interpretes  scriptum  est  Panem  nostrum  quotidianum 
da  nobis  /lodie,  melius  in  Grasco  habetur  Panem  nostrum  tiriovmov,  id  est prce- 
cipuum,  egre(jium, peculiarem,'*  eum  videlicet  qui  de  Cislo  descendens  ait  (Job. 
vi.,  51 ),  E(jo  sum  panis  qui  de  ccelo  dcscendi.  Absit  quippe  ut  nos,  qui  in  cras- 
tinum  cogitare  prohibemur,  de  pane  isto  qui  post  paululum  concoquendus  et 
abjiciendus  est  in  secessum  in  prece  dominica  rogare  jubeamur.  Nee  multum 
differt  inter  tiriohaiov  et  irtpiovaiov ;  praspositio  enim  tantummodo  est  muta- 
ta,  non  verbum.  Quidam  i-iovaiov  existimant  in  oratione  dominica  panem 
dictum,  quod  super  omnes  oiaiaQ  sit,  hoc  est  super  universas  substantias. 
Quod  si  accipitur,  non  multum  ab  eo  sensu  differt  quem  exposuimus.  Quid- 
quid  enim  egregium  est  et  praecipuum,  extra  omnia  est  et  super  omnia."  And 
similarly  in  his  Commentary  on  St.  Matthew  {Op.,  vii.,  p.  34),  written  a  few 
years  afterward  (A.D.  3tJ8)  :  "  Quod  nos  super suhstantialem  cxpressimus,  in 
Gracco  habetur  t-ioirfftoi', quod  verbum  Septuaginta  interpretes  inpiovaiov  ive- 
quentissime  transferunt.  .  .  .  Possumus  supersubstantialem  panem  et  aliter 
intellegere,  qui  super  omnes  substantias  sit  et  universas  superet  creaturas. 
Alii  simpliciter  putant,  secundum  apostoli  sermonem  dicentis  Hahentes  victum 
et  vestitum  his  contenti  simus,  de  praisenti  tantum  cibo  sanctos  curam  agere." 
Hitherto  he  is  apparently  consistent  with  himself  in  connecting  the  word  v.ith 
otjala ,  but  in  a  later  work,  the  Commentary  on  Ezekiel  (  Op. ,  v. ,  p.  209),  writ- 
ten from  A.D.  411-414,  he  says, "  Melius  est  ut  intelligamus  panem  justi  eum 
esse  qui  dicit.  Ego  sum  jianis  vivus  qui  de  ccelo  descendi,  et  quem  in  oratione 
nobis  tribui  deprecamur,  Panem  nostrum  suhstantivum,  sive' superventurum,  da 
nobis,  ut  quem  postea  semper  accepturi  sumus,  in  prsesenti  saeculo  quotidie 
mereamur  accipere."  And  in  a  still  later  work  against  the  Pelagians,  writ- 
ten about  A.D.  41."),  he  speaks  with  the  same  uncertainty  (iii.,  15,ii.,p.  800): 
"Sic  docuit  apostolos  suos  ut  quotidie  in  corporis  illius  sacrificio  credentes 

audeant  loqui  Pater  noster,  etc Panem  quotidianum,  sive  super  omnes 

substantias,  venturum  apostoli  deprecantur  ut  digni  sint  assumtione  corporis 
Christi."  In  one  point  only  is  he  consistent  throughout.  He  insists  on  a 
spiritual,  as  opposed  to  a  literal,  interpretation  of  the  bread. 
j.  The  indecision,  or  the  scruple,  or  the  carelessness  which  led  Jerome  to  re- 
tain quotidianum  in  one  evangelist  while  he  removed  it  from  another,  bore 
strange  fruit.  Jerome's  revised  Latin  Version  became  the  Bible  of  the  West- 
ern churches.  The  knowledge  of  the  Greek  tongue  died  out.  The  fact  that 
the  same  word  tmovaiov  occurs  in  both  Gospels  passed  out  of  memory.     The 

*  It  thus  appears  that  the  sense  which  St.  Jerome  himself  attaches  to  his  rendering 
supersubstantialem  is  different  from  that  which  some  theologians  have  assigned  to  it. 


APPENDIX. 


Ill 


difference  which  was  found  in  the  Latin  Vulgate  came  to  be  regarded  as  a 
difference  in  the  language  of  the  evangelists  themselves.  As  such  it  is  com- 
mented upon  by  the  most  learned  Latin  writers  in  successive  ages.  So  it  is 
treated  even  by  his  own  younger  contemporary  Cassianus,  who,  though  him- 
self not  ignorant  of  Greek,  yet  in  a  treatise  written  soon  after  the  death  of  St. 
Jerome,  writes  (Col/at.,  ix.,  21),"Pa«ew  nostrum  tmovmov,  id  est,  supersub- 
stantialem,  da  nobis  hodie;  quod  alius  evangelista  quotidianum."  So,  again, 
it  is  taken  by  Anselm  in  the  11th  or  12th  century  {Comm.in  Matth.),hy  K\c- 
olas  of  Lyra  in  the  I4th  (Comtn.  in  Matth.),  and  by  Dionysius  Carthusianus 
in  the  15th  (Enarr.  in  Matth.)*  all  of  whom  remark  on  the  different  epithets 
used  by  St. Matthew  and  St.Luke. 

But  the  most  remarkable  instance  of  this  blunder  is  furnished  by  a  contro- 
versy between  the  two  foremost  men  of  their  time,  St.  Bernard  and  Abelard. 
The  Abbot  of  Clairvaux,  having  occasion  to  visit  the  convent  of  the  Paraclete, 
of  which  Heloise  was  abbess,  observed  that  in  repeating  the  Lord's  Prayer  at 
the  daily  hours  a  change  was  made  in  the  usual  form,  the  word  "  supersub- 
stantialem"  being  substituted  for  "  quotidianum."  As  Ileloise  had  made  this 
change  imder  the  direction  of  Abelard,  she  communicated  the  complaint  to 
him.  Upon  this  he  wrote  a  letter  of  defense  to  St.Bernard,  which  is  extant 
(P.  Abffilardi  Opera,  i.,  p.  618,  ed.  Cousin).  He  pleads  that  the  form  in  St. 
Matthew  must  be  more  authentic  than  the  fomi  in  St.Luke,  the  former  hav- 
ing been  an  apostle,  and  heard  the  words  as  uttered,  the  latter  having  de- 
rived his  information  at  second-hand — "de  ipso  fonte  Matthseus,  de  rivulo 
fontis  Lucas  est  potatus."  Hence  St.Matthew's  form  is  more  complete,  and 
contains  seven  petitions,  while  St.Luke's  has  only  five.  For  this  reason,  the 
Church,  in  her  offices,  has  rightly  preferred  St.Matthew's  form  to  St.Luke's. 
"What  may  have  been  the  reason,  therefore,"  he  proceeds,  "that  while  we 
retain  the  rest  of  St.Matthew's  words,  we  change  one  only,  saying  quotidia- 
num for  supersubstantialem,f  let  him  state  who  can,  if  indeed  it  is  sufficient  to 
state  it.  For  the  word  quotidianum  does  not  seem  to  express  the  excellence 
of  this  bread,  like  svpersubstantiakm ;  and  it  seems  to  be  an  act  of  no  slight 

•  See  Pfeiffer,  1.  c,  p.  119  seq. 

t  We  may  paidou  the  mistake  of  Abelard  more  readily  when  we  find  that  a  learned 
modern  historian,  commenting  on  the  iucideut,  is  guilty  of  a  still  greater  error.  Mil- 
man  (History  of  Latin  Christianity,  iii.,  p.  2C2,  ed.  2)  remarks  ou  this  dispute:  "The 
question  was  the  clause  in  the  Lord's  Prayer,  our  daily  bread,  or  our  bread  day  by 
day."  Here  two  wholly  different  things  are  confused  together.  (1.)  St.Matthew  and 
St.Luke  alike  have  tinovaiov.  This  was  rendered  quotidianum  in  both  evangelists  in 
the  old  Latin,  as  it  is  rendered  daily  in  both  iu  our  English  Version.  But  Jerome,  by 
substituting  sxipersubstantialem  in  St.Matthew,  and  reX&mmg  quotidianum  Sxi  St.Luke, 
made  an  artificial  variation,  which  misled  Abelard.  Meanwhile  the  qtcotidianum  of 
the  Old  Latin  in  St.Matthew  maintained  its  place  in  the  Service-books,  and  puzzled 
Abelard  by  its  presence.  Abelard's  remarks  are  confined  solely  to  the  epithet  at- 
tached to  aprov.  (2.)  There  is  a  real  difference  between  St.Matthew  and  StLuke  in 
another  part  of  the  sentence,  the  former  having  aijuepov,  this  day,  the  latter  t6  koO' 
hnipav,  day  by  day.  This  distinction  was  obliterated  by  the  Old  Latin,  which  took 
the  false  reading  a-i^nepov  in  St.Luke,  and  so  gave  hodie  in  both  evangelists.  It  reap- 
pears again  in  the  original  Vulgate  of  Jerome,  which  has  hodie  in  StMatthew  and  coti- 
die  in  St.Luke  (though  once  more  obliterated  in  the  Clementine  recension).  Of  this 
difference  Dean  Milman  seems  to  have  had  some  not  very  clear  idea,  and  to  have  con- 
fused it  with  the  dispute  about  intovaiov,  but  Abelard  does  not  mention  it  at  all. 


178    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

presumption  to  correct  the  M-ords  of  an  apostle,  and  to  make  up  one  prayer 
out  of  two  evangelists,  in  such  a  manner  that  neither  seems  to  be  sufficient  in 
respect  of  it  (the  prayer),  and  to  recite  it  in  a  form  in  which  it  was  neither 
spoken  by  the  Lord  nor  wi'itten  by  any  of  the  evangelists,  especially  when,  in 
all  other  portions  of  their  writings  which  are  read  in  church,  their  words  are 
kept  separate,  however  much  they  may  differ  in  respect  of  completeness  or 
incompleteness  (impermixta  sunt  verba  eorum,  quacunque  perfectione  vel  im- 
perfectione  discrepentj.  Therefore,  if  any  one  blames  me  for  innovating  in 
this  matter,  let  him  consider  whether  blame  is  not  rather  due  to  the  person 
who  presumed  out  of  two  prayers  written  in  old  times  to  make  up  one  new 
prayer,  which  deserves  rather  to  be  called  his  own  than  an  evangelist's  (non 
tarn  evangelicam  quam  suam  dicendam).  Lastly,  the  discernment  of  the 
Greeks,  whose  authority  (as  St.Ambrose  saith)  is  greater,  hath,  owing  to  the 
aforesaid  reasons,  as  I  suppose,  brought  the  prayer  of  St  Matthew  alone  into 
common  use,  saying  ruv  dprov  I'/^iov  ruv  tTrioiKTioj',  which  is  translated  Pa«e;M 
nostrum  supersnhstantiahm.'"  Strange  it  is,  that,  though  quoting  the  Greek 
words  of  St.]Mav;ihew  (apparently,  however,  at  second-hand),  Abelard  did  not 
take  the  trouble  to  consult  the  original  of  St. Luke,  but  here,  as  elsewhere,* 
allowed  himself  to  follow  the  Vulgate  implicitly.  Strange  too,  but  less  strange, 
that  he  should  not  have  recognized  in  the  quotidianum  of  the  Church  services 
the  remnant  of  an  older  vei-sion,  which  in  this  instance  Jerome's  revision  bad 
been  powerless  to  displace.  We  do  not  hear  that  St.  Bernard  refuted  his 
pertinacious  adversary  by  exposing  his  error.  It  is  improbable  that  he  pos- 
sessed the  learning  necessary  for  this  puii^ose,  for  in  learning,  at  least,  he  was 
no  match  for  his  brilliant  opponent.  He  probably  fell  back  on  the  usage  of 
the  Church,  and  refused  to  cross  weapons  with  so  formidable  an  adversary. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  such  notices  as  these,  the  marvel  is  that  Jerome's  su- 
persuhstantialis  took  so  little  hold  upon  the  Latin  Church  at  large.  When, 
after  some  generations,  his  revised  Vulgate  superseded  the  Old  Latin, the  word 
confronted  students  of  the  Bible  in  St. Matthew,  and  in  this  position  it  was 
commented  upon  and  discussed.  But  here  its  influence  ended.  St.  Augus- 
tine, on  the  morrow  of  Jerome's  revision,  still  continues  to  quote  and  to  ex- 
plain the  petition  witli  the  word  quotidianum,  as  St.  Hilary t  had  quoted  and 
explained  it  on  the  eve.  Despite  the  great  name  of  Jerome,  whose  authority 
reigned  paramount  in  Western  Christendom  for  many  centuries  in  all  matters 
of  scriptural  intei-pretation,  quotidianum  was  never  displaced  in  the  Lord's 
Prayer  as  used  in  the  offices  of  the  Church.  Eoman,  Galilean,  Ambrosian, 
and  Mozarabic  Liturgies  all  retained  it.  The  word  supersubstantialem  is  not, 
so  far  as  I  can  learn,  once  substituted  for  quotidianum  in  any  public  services 
of  the  Latin  Chiuxh.J    The  use  which  Abelard  introduced  at  the  Paraclete 

*  Abelard  uses  similar  language  elsewhere,  In  Diebus  Rogat.  Serm.,  Op.,  i.,  p.  471 : 
"  Non  sine  admiratione  videtur  accipiendum  quod  apnd  nos  in  consuetudinem  eccle- 
siifi  venerit  ut  qnum  orationem  domiuicam  in  verbis  Matthsei  freqnentemus,  qui  earn, 
ut  dictum  est,  perfectius  scripserit,  unum  ejus  verbum  caeteris  omnibus  retentis  com- 
mutenuis,  pro  supersubstantialem  scilicet,  qnod  ipse  posuit,  dicentes  quotidianum,  sicut 
Lucas  ait,  etc."  On  the  other  band,  in  the  Expositio  Orationis  Dominicce  (i.,p.  599 
seq.),  he  comments  on  quotidianum,  and  does  not  even  mention  supersubstantialem. 

t  Fragm.,  Op.,  ii.,  p.  714. 

t  It  has  been  pointed  out  to  me  that  the  words  "pauem  nostrum  quotidianum  sn- 


APPENDIX.  179 

was  obviously  isolated  and  exceptional,  and  appears  to  have  been  pi'omptly 
suppressed.  The  devotional  instinct  of  the  Church  would  seem  to  have  been 
repelled  by  a  scholastic  term  so  little  in  harmony  with  our  Lord's  mode  of 
speaking,  and  so  ill  adapted  to  religious  worship.  Even  in  the  Catechhmus 
ad  Parochos,  issued  by  the  Council  of  Trent  as  a  manual  for  the  guidance  of 
the  Roman  clergy,  and  containing  a  very  full  exposition  of  the  Lord's  Pray- 
er, the  ^^■ord  quotidianum  is  retained,  while  the  alternative  supersubstantialem 
is  not  once  mentioned,  though  a  eucharistic  application  is  given  to  the  peti- 
tion, and  the  epithet  quotidianum  explained  in  accordance  therewith.* 

The  pre-Reformation  versions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  the  languages  of 
Western  Europe,  being  derived  from  the  Latin,  naturally  follow  the  render- 
ing which  the  translator  in  each  case  had  before  him.  If  taken  from  the  Old 
Latin  or  from  the  Service-books,  they  give  daili/ ;  if  from  the  Vulgate,  sjiper- 
substayitial.  Among  a  large  number  of  versions  and  paraphrases  of  the  Lord's 
Praj'er  in  the  various  Teutonic  dialects,!  the  latter  rendering  occurs  very 
rarely,  and  then  (for  the  most  part)  only  in  situ  in  the  Gospel  of  St. Mat- 
thew, as,  e.  g. , "  ofer-wistlic"  in  the  Lindisfanie  Gospels,  and ' '  over  other  sub- 
staunce"'  in  Wicliffe. 

The  early  Reformers  also,  for  the  most  part,  adopted  the  familiar  render- 
ing. In  Luther's  Version  it  is  interpreted  "  unser  taglich  brodt,"  and  Calvin 
also  advocates  the  derivation  from  tintvai.  So,  too,  it  is  taken  in  the  Latin 
of  Leo  Juda.  Our  own  Tyndale  rendered  it  in  the  same  way,  and  in  all  the 
subsequent  English  versions  of  the  Reformed  Church  this  rendering  is  retain- 
ed. On  the  other  hand,  the  derivation  from  oiKjia  was  adopted  by  Beza,t 
whose  interpretation,  however,  in  this  particular  instance,  does  not  appear  to 
have  influenced  the  Reformed  versions. § 

To  sum  up  the  results  of  this  investigation  into  the  testimony  of  the  most 
ancient  versions  :  The  Syrian,  the  Egyptian,  the  Latin  churches,  are  distinct 
from  one  another,  yet  all  alike  bear  witness  in  the  earliest  forms  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer  to  the  one  derivation  of  iTrtovmov  as  against  the  other.  In  the  Syri- 
an churches  we  have  testimony  from  two  distinct  sources.  The  Egyptian 
churches  likewise  tell  the  same  tale  with  a  twofold  utterance.  All  may  be 
regarded  as  prior  to  Origen,  the  first  Greek  ftither  who  discusses  the  meaning 

persubstantialem"  occur  in  the  Breviary  in  the  Orationum  Actio  post  Missara,  the  two 
epithets  being  combined ;  but  this  is  only  an  indirect  reference  to  the  Lord's  Prayer. 

*  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  as  showing  how  little  favor  this  rendering  found,  that  a 
Boman  Catholic  commentator  of  the  16rh  century,  Maldonatus  (on  Matth.  vi.,  11),  sup- 
poses that  Jerome  never  intended  to  place  supersubstantialem  in  the  text,  and  that 
it  got  thereby  carelessness:  "Hieronymus  supersubstantialem  vertit, quamqnam  in 
60  veterem  versiouem  noluit  corrigere.  Itaque  incaute  quidam  nostro  tempore  in 
vnlgata  editioue  pro  quotidiauo  supersubstantialem  posuerunt."  This  view  is  quite 
groundless. 

t  See  the  collection  in  Marsh's  Origin  and  History  of  the  English  Language,  p.  76 
seq. ;  and  also  Tlie  Gospel  of  St.Matthew  in  Anglo-Saxon  and  Northumbrian  Versions 
(Cambr.,  1S5S). 

t  Indeed, he  himself,  though  he  explaius  the  word  "qui  nostris  viribus  sustentan- 
dis  sufficiat,"  yet  retains  quotidianum  in  the  text,  saying  "Mihi  religio  fult  quicquam 
immutare  in  hac  precationis  formula  in  ecclesia  Dei  tanto  jam  tempore  nsurpata." 

§  In  Tomsou's  Version  of  the  N.  T.,  however,  which  is  attached  to  the  Geneva  Bible, 
though  it  is  rendered  "  dayly,"  a  marginal  note  is  added,  "  That  that  is  meete  for  our 
nature  for  our  dayly  foode,  or  such  as  may  suffice  our  nature  and  complexion." 


1 80      LIGIITFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

of  the  word.  In  the  Syrian  and  the  Latin  churches  we  have  seen  how,  at  a 
later  date,  the  scholastic  interpretation  was  superposed  upon  the  traditional, 
but  with  different  success.  In  the  former  it  ultimately  prevailed  ;  in  the  lat- 
ter it  never  obtained  more  than  a  precarious  footing.  The  Egyptian  churches, 
being  more  effectually  isolated  from  Greek  influences,  preserved  the  tradi- 
tional sense  to  the  end. 

These  versions  alone  have  any  traditional  value.  But  others,  which  were 
made  in  the  fourth  century  and  later,  are  not  without  their  importance,  as 
showing  how  widely  the  older  interpretation  still  prevailed  in  the  Greek 
Church,  notwithstanding  the  tendency  in  the  Greek  fivthers  towards  the  deri- 
vation adopted  or  invented  by  Origen.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  all  the 
remaining  versions  which  can  with  probability  be  assigned  to  the  foiu'th  or 
fifth  centuries  give  the  temporal  sense  to  iTriovaiov,  or  (in  other  words)  derive 
it  from  iTTievat.  In  the  Gothic,  whose  date  is  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
centuiy,  it  is  rendered  by  su(<et«an, "  continual;"  in  the  Armenian,  which 
was  made  some  time  before  the  middle  of  the  fifth,  being  begun  from  the  Syr- 
iac,  and  afterwards  revised  and  completed  from  the  Greek,  it  is  likewise  trans- 
lated "continual,  daily ;"  and  similarly  in  the  ^thiopic,  whose  date  is  some- 
what uncertain, it  is  given  "of  each  day"  in  both  St.Matthew  and  Bt.Luke. 

Thus  tradition  is  not  only  not  adverse  to  the  derivation  Avhich  etymological 
considerations  seem  to  require,  but  favors  it  very  decidedly.  With  this  strong 
confirmation,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  adopt  it.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  only 
fair  to  notice  that,  though  tradition  is  in  accordance  with  itself  and  with  ety- 
mology so  far  as  regards  the  derivation  from  iTriivaL,  yet  the  same  degree  of 
coincidence  can  not  be  claimed  on  behalf  of  the  derivation  from  the  feminine 
tTTioiiaa,  and  the  more  precise  meaning  for  the  coming  day  thus  obtained. 
Yet  this  meaning  seems  to  be  supported  by  the  oldest  tradition,  and  to  offer 
a  better  justification  of  the  coinage  of  a  new  word.  At  the  same  time,  when 
the  word  was  once  in  use,  it  would  require  a  conscious  effort  of  the  mind  to 
separate  two  etymologies  so  intimately  connected,  and  the  close  alliance  of 
meaning,  /or  t/ie  coming  day  and_/or  the  coming  tune,  would  encourage  a  cer- 
tain vagueness  of  conception  within  these  narrow  limits.  It  was  only  when 
the  meaning  was  stereotyped  by  translation  into  another  language  that  it 
would  assume  definitely  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  allied  senses. 

Thus  the  familiar  rendering  "daily,"  which  has  prevailed  uninterruptedly 
in  the  Western  Church  from  the  beginning,  is  a  fairly  adequate  i-epresentation 
of  the  original ;  nor,  indeed,  does  the  English  language  furnish  any  one  word 
which  would  answer  the  purpose  so  well. 

II. 

The  word  iiriovaioQ  was  connected,  as  we  have  seen,  by  several  of  the  fa- 
thers with  TTipiovaioQ.  I  hope  that  sufficient  reasons  have  been  given  already 
for  rejecting  this  connection  as  based  on  a  false  analogy.  But  still  the  word 
iripioixjiog  is  important  in  itself,  and  (as  its  meaning  has  been  somewhat  mis- 
understood by  modem  as  well  as  by  ancient  commentators)  I  take  this  oppor- 
tunity of  explaining  what  seems  to  be  its  proper  force. 

Origen  (Z>e  Orat.,  27,  i.,  p.  246),  in  the  passage  of  which  I  have  already 
quoted  the  context  (p.  163  seq.),  distinguishes  these  two  words,  tTriot/fffoc,  tte- 


APPENDIX.  181 

piovaioQ,  as  follows :  t)  juev  rov  tig  Tt)v  ovalav  av/ijSaWonivov  dprov  SijXovaa, 
i)  Ct  Tov  TTipi  T>)v  ova'iav  Karayivofiivov  \abv  Kot  Kotvuivovvra  aiirtp.  With 
this  brief  account  of  the  word  he  contents  himself.  Apparently  he  under- 
stands TTtpiovaioQ  to  mean  "connected  with  and  participating  in  absolute  be- 
ing," thus  assigning  to  it  a  sense  closely  allied  to  that  which  he  has  given  to 
iTnovaioc.  This  meaning  may  be  dismissed  at  once.  It  does  not  correspond 
with  the  original  Hebrew,  and  it  is  an  impossible  sense  to  attach  to  the  word 
itself.  Nevertheless,  it  is  taken  up  by  Victorinus,  who  writes  (c.  Arium,  i., 
?>\,Bibl.  F^e^.Pa^r.,  viii.,  p.  1(J3,  ed.Galland.), "  Sic  rursus  et  Paullus  in  Epis- 
tola  ad  Titum  populum  irtpiovaiov,  circa  substantiam,  hoc  est  circa  vitam  con- 
sistentem  populum;"  and  again  (ii.,8,  ib.,p.  177), "Latinus  cum  non  intelli- 
geret  inpiovuiov  cI^Xov,  mpiovaiov,  tov  Trepiovra  [read  irepi  livra?]  id  est,  circa 
vitam  quam  Christus  et  habet  et  dat,  posuit  populum  abundantem."  And 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  on  St. Luke  (Mai,  ii.,p.  2G6),in  the  context  of  a  passage 
already  quoted  (p.  170),  hkewise  connects  it  with  tmovaiog,  giving  it  an  equal- 
ly impossible  sense,  civti  tov  imovaiov  tuv  irepiovatov  elniov,  TOvrkaTi  rov  dp- 
Kovvra  Kot  tov  reXdtijg  txnv  ovx  I'lTTiofitvov. 

On  the  other  hand,  Jerome  (on  Tit.  ii.,  14,  vii.,  p.  725  seq.)  says  that,  hav- 
ing thought  much  over  the  word  Trtpiovaiov,  and  consulted  "the  wise  of  this 
world'  whether  they  had  met  with  it  elsewhere,  without  getting  any  satisfac- 
tion, he  betook  him  to  the  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  where  it  occurs, 
and  by  a  comparison  of  these  arrived  at  the  meaning  egregium,  prcccipuuvi, 
peculiarem,  a  sense  which  (as  we  have  seen)  he  gives  to  ivnovaiov  also. 
Though  wholly  wrong  as  applied  to  iniovaiov,  this  meaning  is  fairly  adequate 
to  represent  iztpiovaiov ;  but  it  is  clear  from  the  context  that  Jerome  does 
not  seize  the  exact  force  of  the  word,  which  appears  also  to  have  escaped  later 
commentators. 

We  may  reasonably  infer  from  the  notices  of  Oingen  and  Jerome  that  this 
word  was  unknown  out  of  Biblical  Greek,  and  we  have  therefore  no  choice 
but  to  follow  the  method  of  the  latter,  and  investigate  the  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament  where  it  occurs. 

The  expression  Xooc  TrtpiovaioQ  is  found  four  times  in  the  LXX. :  Exodus 
xix.,  5  ;  Deut.  vii.,  G  ;  xiv.,  2  ;  xxvi.,  18.  In  the  first  passage  it  is  a  render- 
ing of  the  single  word  !^^?p,  in  the  three  last  of  n^."p  WS.  Moreover,  in 
Psa.  cxxxiv.(cxxxv.),  4,  irSilplp  is  translated  iIq  Treptovaiaafiov  tavT<p.  In 
all  these  passages  the  reference  is  to  the  Israelites  as  the  peculiar  people  of 
God.  Once  more,  in  Eccles.  ii.,  8  we  have  awfiyayov  noi  Knlys  dpyvpiov 
Kalye  xpvaiov  Kal  Tnptovataanovg  jSafftXfwj/  Kai  rwv  ;;^wpdi)',  where  again  iripi- 
ovaiaff/jovg  represents  "^i^^P,  but  in  this  instance  without  any  reference  to  tho 
chosen  people.  These  appear  to  be  the  only  passages  in  the  LXX.  where  rrtpi- 
ovaioc,  ■mpiovaiatriioQ  occur.  But  ^^sSp  is  found,  besides,  in  two  other  places : 
in  Mai.  iii.,  17,  where  again  it  refers  to  the  chosen  people,  and  where  it  is 
rendered  fi'c  Trepnroirjaiv ;  and  in  1  Chron.  xxix.,  3,  where  Solomon  says,  "I 
have  a  fi'sSG  [translated  in  our  version ' '  of  mine  own  proper  good"],  gold  and 
silver  which  I  have  given  to  the  house  of  my  God,  over  and  above  all  that  I 
have  prepared  for  the  holy  house,"  rendered  by  the  LXX.  lan  ftoi  o  Tnpmt- 
TToiriiJai  xpvaiov  Kai  dpyvpiov,  k.t.X. 

Of  these  two  renderings  which  the  LXX.  offers  for  nisSp,  the  one  is  adopt- 


1 82    LIGUTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 

ed  by  St.Paul,  Tit.  ii.,  14,  Xavg  irepiovmoQ  ,  the  other  b_v  t't. Peter,  1  Pet.  ii., 
9,  Xaog  elg  'irtpnzo'ir](jiv.  The  reference  in  St. Peter  is  to  Exod.  xix.,  5,  where, 
however,  the  rendering  nepiovcioe  is  found  in  the  LXX. 

The  Hebrew  root  baO,  from  Avhich  H^JO  comes,  is  not  found  in  the  Bible. 
But  the  senses  of  kindred  roots  in  Hebrew,  such  as  'nSD,  and  of  other  deriva- 
tives of  this  same  root  in  the  allied  languages,  point  to  its  meaning.  It  sig- 
nifies "  to  surround  on  all  sides,"  and  so  to  "  gather  together,  set  apart,  re- 
serve, appropriate." 

In  grammar,  the  Eabbinical  expression  for  a  proper  name  is  il?*5D  C"i^. 
In  logic,  the  predicable />?'o/?rJM?«  is  designated  nbUD  by  them. 

Applied  to  property,  the  word  n?5D  would  denote  the  private  treasure 
which  a  person  acquires  for  himself,  or  possesses  by  himself  alone,  as  distin- 
guished from  that  which  he  shares  with  others.  Of  a  king,  we  might  say 
that  it  was  the  "  fiscus"  as  distinguished  from  the  "  a^rarium, "  the  privy  purse 
as  opposed  to  the  public  treasury.  It  is  something  reserved  for  his  private 
uses.  In  two  of  the  passages  where  it  occurs,  Eccles.ii.,  8;  1  Chron.  xxix., 
3,  it  refers  to  kings  ;  and  in  the  latter  it  seems  to  be  carefully  distinguished 
from  the  money  which  would  naturally  be  devoted  to  expenditure  on  public 
works. 

Thus  there  is  no  great  difficulty  about  the  original  Hebrew  word.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  less  easy  to  see  how  the  same  idea  can  be  represented  by  the 
Greek  TnpiomioQ.  Jerome  speaks  as  though  the  leading  notion  of  the  word 
were  "superiority,"  derived  from  iripulvai  in  the  sense  "to  excel."  Obvi- 
ously this  meaning  would  not  correspond  to  the  original. 

We  arrive  at  a  more  just  conception  of  its  force  by  considering  a  synonym 
which  Jerome  himself  points  out.  This  same  Hebrew  word,  which  in  the 
LXX.  is  given  inpiovatov,  was  rendered  by  Symmachus  i^aipirov  (Hieron., 
Op.,  vi.,  p.  34,  720).  Jei'ome  indeed  is  satisfied  with  translating  t^aipirovhy 
prcecipuum  or  egregiuvi,  but  its  meaning  is  much  more  precise  and  forcible. 
It  was  used  especially  of  the  portion  which  was  set  apart  as  the  share  of  the 
king,  or  general,  before  the  rest  of  the  spoils  were  distributed  by  lot  or  other- 
wise to  the  soldiers  of  the  ^■ictorious  army.  The  exemption  from  the  com- 
mon mode  of  apportionment  in  favor  of  rank  or  virtue  is  the  leading  idea  of 
the  word.  Thus,  in  Plutarch,  Vit.  Cor.,  10,  Ave  are  told  that  when  Coriolanus, 
as  a  reward  for  his  bravery,  was  asked  to  select  from  the  spoils  ten  of  every 
kind  before  the  distribution  to  the  rest  (tIsXfaSat  ^k-a  Travra  npb  tov  v'sfitiv 
Tolg  aXXoif),  he  declined  to  do  so,  saying  that  he  would  take  his  chance  with 
the  others;  but  he  added,  i^aipirov  piav  airovixai  x«|0"'j  "I  bave  one  favor 
to  ask  as  an  exceptional  boon."  In  the  triumphant  anticipation  of  Sisera's 
mother,  "Have  they  not  divided  the  prey  ?  to  every  man  [lit.,  to  the  head  of 
a  man]  a  damsel  or  two,  to  Sisera  a  prey  of  divers  colors,  etc."  we  have  the 
idea  which  a  Greek  poet  might  express  by  iKalpnov  cuipijiia  (e.  g.,  -iEsch., 
jE'm»2.,380;  comp.  ^.(7a7«.,927),  the  special  treasure  assigned  to  the  captain 
over  and  above  the  distribution  which  was  made  to  the  rest,  counted  by  heads. 
This  sense  of  t^aiptTov  is  too  common  to  need  farther  illustration ;  and  I  can 
not  doubt  that  Symmachus  selected  it  on  this  account  as  an  appropriate  word 
to  express  the  idea  of  the  original.  The  leading  idea  is  not  superiority,  as 
Jerome  seems  to  imagine,  but  exception.     "  Egregium,"  strictly  interpreted, 


APPE^'DIX. 


183 


might  represent  it,  but  not  "  prcecipuum."  It  is  the  "  exsortem  dacere  hono- 
rem"  of  Virgil.  This  idea  fitly  expresses  the  relations  of  Jehovah  to  Israel, 
wliom  in  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament  elsewhere  he  retained  nnder  his 
sjjecial  care  (see  the  notes  on  Clem.  Rom.,  29). 

The  same  conception  seems  to  be  involved  in  Trtpiovmog.  This  word  may 
have  been  invented  by  the  LXX.  translators,  or  it  may  have  had  some  local 
currency  in  their  age  ;  but,  if  the  latter  was  the  case,  the  fact  was  unknown 
to  Origen  and  Jerome,  for  they  speak  of  Trepioixnog  as  not  occurring  out  of  the 
Bible.  In  either  case,  it  might  be  derived  from  inpaov,  on  the  analogy  of 
tKovffioQ,  tOeXovcnoc,  etc.,  or  from  ovala,  like  tvovmog,  avovaiog,  etc.  (see  above, 
p.  200,  201}.  Thus  its  meaning  would  be  either  "  existing  over  and  above," 
or  "possessed  over  and  above,"  and  the  same  idea  of  exception  from  the  com- 
mon laws  of  distribution  would  be  involved  as  in  i^aiptroQ. 

St.  Jerome  mentions  also*  that  in  another  passage  S^-mmachus  had  adopt- 
ed the  Latin  wonA. peculiarem  as  a  rendering  of  UPSO.  He  doubtless  ventured 
on  this  bold  expedient  because  the  Greek  language  did  not  furnish  so  exact 
an  equivalent  as  pecnlium ,  for  i^aiperov,  adequate  as  it  is  in  some  respects, 
introduces  the  new  idea  of  division  oi spoils,  which  is  wanting  in  the  original. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Latin  peculium,  being  nsed  to  denote  the  private  purse 
which  a  member  of  the  family,  whether  slave  or  free,  was  allowed  in  particu- 
lar cases  to  possess  and  accumulate  for  his  own  use,  distinct  from  the  prop- 
erty which  the  paterfomilias  administered  for  the  good  of  the  whole,  approach- 
ed very  closely  to  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew ;  and,  moreover,  there  was  a 
convenient  adjective  peculiaris  derived  therefrom.  Impressed,  it  would  ap- 
pear, with  the  value  of  the  word  which  he  had  thus  leai-ned  from  Symmachus, 
Jerome  himself  has  almost  wnivevsaUy  adopted  peculiuin,  peculiaris,  as  a  ren- 
dering of  ilbjO  in  the  Old  Testament ;  e.  g.,  Exod.  xix.,  5,  "Eritis  mihi  inpe- 
culium  de  cunctis  populis  ;"  1  Chron.  xxix.,  3, "  Qu:b  obtuli  in  domum  Dei  mei 
lie  peculio ;"  Deut.  xxvi.,  18  (comp.  vii.,  6;  xiv.,  2),  "Elegit  te  hodie  ut  sis 
ei  populus^ecw/Zaris,"  etc.f 

Our  English  translators,  in  adopting  this  word  "peculiar"  after  the  Vul- 
gate, were  obviously  aware  of  its  appropriate  technical  sense.  This  appears 
from  the  mode  in  which  they  use  it ;  e.  g.,  Psa.  cxxxv.,  4, "The  Lord  hath 
chosen  Jacob  unto  himself,  and  Israel  for  his  peculiar  treasure"  (comp.  Exod. 
xix.,  5  ;  Eccles.  ii.,  8,  in  both  which  passages  the  word  "treasure"  is  added). 
Twice  only  have  they  departed  from  the  w-ord  ' '  pecuhar"  in  rendering  nbsD  : 
in  Deut.  vii.,  G,  where  it  is  translated  "  a  special  people,"  and  in  Mai.  iii.,  17, 
where  it  is  represented  by  "jewels,"  but  with  a  marginal  alternative,"  spe- 

*  Hieron.,  Op.,  vi.,  p.  34,  "licet  in  qnodam  loco  peculiare  inferpretatns  sit,"  ib.,  vi., 
p.  726,  "in  alio  voUuniue  Latino  sernione  uteus peculiareni  interpietatiis  est."  Differ- 
ent interpretations  of  this  second  passage  have  been  given,  but,  compared  with  the  first, 
it  can  only  mean  that  "  in  another  book  of  Scripture  Symmachus  adopted  a  Latin  ex- 
pression, translating  the  word  by  pecwJiarem,"  jnst  in  the  same  way  as  Ignatius,  writ- 
ing in  Greek,  nses  deaepriap,  Se-iroana,  anKCTTTa  (Poltjc,  C),  because  the  Greek  language 
did  not  supply  such  convenient  terms  to  express  his  meaning.  It  is  extremely  improb- 
able that  Symmachus  wrote  any  work  in  Latin,  as  some  have  supposed. 

t  The  normal  rendering  in  the  Old  Latin  (which  was  translated  from  the  LXX.)  was 
abimdans :  see,  e.g.,  Exod.  xix., 5;  Tit.  ii.,  14;  and  the  quotation  ofVictorinus  given 
above  (p.  174-5).  This  would  be  a  very  natural  interpretation  of  jrepioiJo-ior  to  any  one 
unacquainted  with  the  Hebrew. 


184    LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  K.  TEST. 

cial  treasure."'  In  this  last  passage  the  rendering  should  probably  be,  "And 
they  shall  be  to  me,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  in  the  day  which  I  appoint,  for 
a  peculiar  treasure,"  and  not,  as  our  version  has  it, "And  they  shall  be  mine, 
saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  in  that  day  when  I  make  up  my  jewels."  In  Tit.  ii., 
1-1,  \aoQ  Trtpiovaioc,  and  I  Pet.  ii.,  1),  Xuuq  hq  Trfpnronjdn',  where  (as  I  liave 
already  observed)  we  have  two  distinct  Greek  renderings  of  the  same  HebrcAv, 
the  expressions  are  once  more  united  in  our  version,  which,  following  Tyn- 
dale,  translates  both  by  "a  peculiar  people."  Strangely  enough,  St.  Jerome, 
who  introduces  peciiliuni,  peculiaris,  in  the  Old  Testament,  has  other  and  di- 
verse renderings  in  botli  these  passages  of  the  New ;  populus  accejitahilis  in 
the  one  case,  and  popu/us  adqtdsitionis  in  the  other.  His  New  Testament 
was  executed  before  his  Old  ;  and  it  would  appear  that  in  the  interval  he  had 
recognized  the  value  of  the  rendering  suggested  by  Symmachus,  and  adopted 
it  accordingly. 


INDEX  IJ' 


Page 

miATT.  i.,  1 93 

"       i.,2,3..- 137 

"  i.,  6 ......  i ....  95 

"  i.,  22  .'.87  ^,109 

«       ii.,4 94 

"       ii.,5 109 

"       ii.,6 137 

"      ii.,  15 84,109 

"      ii.,17 109,13a 

"       iii.,  1 90 

«       iii.,3 109 

"       iii.,4 105 

"       iii.,  13 90 

"       iii.,  14 91 

"       iii.,  15,1G 116 

«       iv.,5 100 

"      iv.,6 112 

"       iv.,8 102 

"       iv.,  13 148 

"       v.,1 101 

"  v.,  15....  52-3, 101, 
107, 144. 

'^       v.,  16 52-3 

"       v.,  32 73 

"       vi.,11 163-180 

"       vi.,13 44 

"       vi.,16,18 116 

"       vi.,25 145,167 

"       vi.,  31 145 

"  vi.,34.145,16G,  167 

"       viii.,12 97 

"       ix.,  16 125 

"  X.,  4.;....  121, 122 

«       x.,9 85 

"       x.,16 120 

"       x.,29 141,142 

"       xi.,2 94 

"  xii.,1,5,10,11,12.127 

"       xii.,  18 124 

"  xiii.,20....57,149 

"       xiii.,  21 149 

"  xiii.,  24, 25 . . . .    71 

"       xiii.,  33 144 

"  xiii.,  42, 50....    97 


Pnge 

Matt,  xiii.,  55 137 

xiv.,8 120 

XV., 3, 6...:...  Ill 

XV.,  21 148 

XV.,  22 121 

XV.,  27 118 

XV.,  35 74 

xvi.,9, 10 73 

xvi..  14 135 

xvi.,16 94 

xvi.,  17 137 

xvi.,  25 64 

xvi.,  26 56,64 


xvii.,  1 

xvii.,  10 

xvii.,  21 

xvii.,  24  wg'.. . 

xvii.,  25 

xviii.,  6, 7  — 
xviii.,  24  seq. . 
(bis). 

xviii.,  33 

xix.,8 


102 
131 
43 
143 
150 
150 
143 

46 


xix.,9 

73 

xix.,  17 

44 

xix„19 

137 

XX.,  2, 9, 10, 13 

.  142 

XX.,  20 

46 

xxi.,4...86.87 

,109 

xxi.,12....79,101 

xxi.,  33  seq. . . 

72 

xxii.,  Isey.... 

73 

xxii.,9, 10... 

71 

xxii.,  13 

97 

xxiii.,  6 

53 

xxiii.,  7, 8 

139 

xxiii.,  24..  154 

,155 

xxiii.,  35 

79 

xxiv.,  5 

94 

xxiv.,12 

92 

xxiv.,  15 

109 

xxiv.,  21 

87 

xxiv.,  27 

115 

xxiv.,  30 

112 

Mat 


143 
97 
46 


•t.  xxiv.,  51 97 

XXV.,  6 87 

XXV.,  14  seq 
XXV.,  30... 
XXV.,  32. . . 

XXV.,  46 51 

XXVI.,  15 123 

xxvi.,  25 139 

xxvi.,  36 125 

xxvi.,48 71 

xxvi., 49.  ..71,139 

xxvi.,  50 114 

xxvi.,  56  . . . 
xxvi.,  63.... 
xxvi.,  64.. . . 
xxvi.,  69, 71 
xxvii.,9 .... 
xxvii.,  15.. . 
xxvii.,  27.  . . 
xxvii.,  33.. . 
xxvii.,  35... 


.86,87 
..  94 
..  112 
...  103 
..  44 
..  105 
..  57 
..  138 
..  109 


I  owe  this  index  of  passnges  to  the  kindness  of 


"  xxviii.,19..40,113 

MaukI.,!.... 44,94 

"      i.,2l 127 

"      ii.,15,16 104 

'•      ii.,  21 125 

"      ii.,23 127 

"      iii.,2,4 127 

"      iii.,  5 120 

"      iii.,  18 121 

"      iv.,  16 57 

"      iv.,21 101,144 

"      iv.,29 123 

"      v.,  13 101 

"      vi.,3 137 

"      vi.,27 141 

'•      vi.,37 142 

"       vi.,  52 120 

"      vii.,  9 Ill 

"      vii.,  26 135 

"      vii.,  31 148 

'•  viii.,  19, 20 ... .    73 

'•      viii.,  29 94 

Mr.  A.  A. Van  Sittart. 


186    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 


Pasre 

Mark  viii.,  3G 50 

ix.,2 102 

ix.,5 139 

ix.,29 43 

ix.,41 .94,95 

x.,51 139 

xi.,4 101 

xi.,  15 101 

xi.,  21 139 

xii.,26 112 

xii.,39 53 

xii.,42 141 

xiii.,14 109 

xiii.,28 118 

xiv.,  5 142 

xiv.,32 125 

xiv.,  45 139 

XIV., 53, 54....  IIG 
xiv.,  66, 69....  103 

XV.,  6 105 

XV.,  16 57 


XV.,  22 138 

XVI.,  9-20 42 


.102, 


Luke  i.,  1. . 
i.,B9. 

i.,59 

i.,63 

i.,65 

ii.,  11 

ii.,18 

ii.,24 

ii.,  33 

ii.,36 

iii.,23 

iii.,  24 

iii.,26 

iii.,  27 

iii.,  30 136, 

iii.,  33. 

iv.,  5 

iv.,9 

iv.,11 

iv.,20 

vi.,  15 

vi-.,16 

vi.,17 

vi.,36 

vii.,4 

vii.,  5 

vii.,33,34 

vii.,  41 

vii.,  45,46 

viii.,  14 

ix,,  25 


Pajre 

Luke  ix.,  55 43 

"      x.,35 142 

"      xi.,3 163-180 

"      xi.,33 101,144 

"      xi.,51 79 

"      xii.,6 141,142 

"      xii.,35 107 

"      xiii.,6 119 

"      xiii.,21 144 

'•      xiii.,  23 90 

"      xiii.,  28 98 

"      XV.,  8 143  (bis) 

"      XV.,  9 143 

"      xvi.,  6,7 144 

"      xvii.,1,2 150 

"      xviii.,  12 85 

"      xviii.,31 109 

"  xix.,  13.52, 143,150 

"      xix.,  15 52 

"     XX.,  37..; 112 

"      XXI.,  19 85 

"      xxii.,  1 139 

"  xxii.,43,44....    43 

"      xxiii.,2 94 

'•      xxiii.,5 138 

"      xxiii.,17 105 

"     xxiii.,33 138 

"      xxiii,34 43 

"  xxiii.,35,39.   .    94 

"      xxiv.,  10 93 

John  i..3 81, 110  (bis) 

i.,7 107,110 

i.,8 106 

i.,9 107 

i.,  10 110  (bis) 

i.,11 72 

i.,  14 63 

i.,16 96 

i.,17 94,110 

i.,18 31,42 

i.,21 95 

i.,25... 94,95 


JOHN- 


i..29 

i.,39 

i.,43 

i.,50 

ii.,6 

iii.,  2 

iii.,  8 

iii.,  10 

iii.,  19 107 

iii.,26 139 

iv.,  5 125 

iv.,0 74 


Page 

iv.,27 104 

iv.,31 139 

iv.,37 106 

v.,  1 105 

v.,3,4 44 

v.,  35 .  106 

v.,  44 106 

vi.,4 105 

vi.,7 142 

vi.,14 95 

v\.,22seq 103 

vi.,25 139 

VI.,  51... 176 

vi.,  69 94 

vii.,  1 138 

vii.,  19, 20 151 

vii.,  25 151 

vii.,  26 94 

vii.,  40 95 

viii.,  1-11 42 

viii.,  58 76 

ix.,2 139 

ix.,5 107 

ix.,22 94 

X.,  16 73 

xi.,  8 139 

xi.,14 153 

xii.,5 142 

xii.,  6 124 

xii.,13 100 

xii.,  40 120 

xiii.,  12 74 

xiii.,  23. 25 74 

xiii.,  27! 114 

xiv.,  5, 6 96 

xiv.,16se2',58,60,61 

xiv.,  18 60 

xiv.,  26 58,60 

xv.,3 Ill 

XV.,  26.... 58, 60,61 

xvi.,  1,4, 6 47 

xvi.,7 58,60 

xvi.,  30 60 

xvii.,3... 94 

xviii.,  1 125 

xviii.,  28, 33...    57 

xviii.,  39 105 

xix.,  9 57 

xix.,  17 138 

xix.,36 87 

XX.,  16 139 

XX.,  22 63-4 

XX.,  25 47 

xxi.,15,16, 17..  137 
xxi.,  20 74 


INDEX  I. 


187 


Puce 

Acts  i.,  3 125 

"  i.,13 121 

«  i.,18 85 

"  ii.,3 ..  123 

"  ii.,11 135 

"  ii.,23 108 

«  ii.,27,31 78 

"  ii.,38 94 

"  ii.,43 108 

"  ii.,47 90 

"  iii..6 94 

"  iii.,13,2G 124 

"  iv.,25,27 79 

"  iv.,27,30 124 

"  vii.,26 91 

"  vii.,45 136 

"  viii.,5 105 

"  viii.,lG 113 

"  viii.,30 64 

"  viii.,37 44 

"  ix.,2.... 96 

"  ix.,35 100,133 

"  x.,2 79 

"  x.,30 43 

"  xi.,17 84,106 

"  xi.,  19 138 

"  xii.,4 139 

"  xii.,9 108 

"  xii.,12 135 

"  xii.,22 79 

"  xii.,25 135 

"  xiii.,  14 127 

"  xiii.,  21 133 

"  xiii.,  50 126 

"  xiv.,13 126 

"  xv.,3 138 

"  xvi.,11 165 

"  xvi.,35,38 141 

"  xvii.,  1 101 

"  xvii.,  2 127 

"  xvii.,  5 79 

"  xvii.,  19, 22 138 

"  xvii.,  23 79,150 

"  xvii.,  29 126 

"  xviii.,  12 140 

"  xviii.,  14 149 

"  xix.,1 148 

"  xLx.,2 84 

"  xix.,3,5 113 

"  xix.,9 96 

"  xix,,  15 65 

"  xix.,23 96 

"  xix.,  30 79 

"  xix.,31 140 

"  xix..33 79 


Acts  xix.,  35 . . . 

xix.,  38 

xx„2 

XX.,  15 

xxi.,  2 

xxi.,3 

xxi.,  15 

xxi.,  18 

xxi.,  28 

xxi.,31 

xxi.,  31, 32 

xxii.,  24-26 .... 
xxiii.,  17-23,... 

xxiii.,35 

xxiv.,5,6 

xxiv.,22 

XXV.,  22 

xxv.,  26 

xxvi.,24,25.... 

xxvii.,  12 

xxvii.,20 

xxviii.,  13 

xxviii.,  15 . .  138, 

xxviii.,  16 

xxviii.,  16,29... 


rase 

140 

140 

135 

165 

138 

116 

147 

105 

79 

151 

141 

141 

141 

57 

151 

90 

91 

68 

47 

138 

115 

147 

157 

141 

43 


EoJi 


Eoji.  i.,  29 148, 149 


ii.,  1  .  . 
ii.,8.. 
ii.,  12  J 
ii.,18. 
ii.,22. 


....  67 
....  120 
....  93 
....  98 
....  126 

ii.,24 Ill 

ii.,26 120 

iii.,4,6 153 

m.,ldseq 93 

iii.,  25 119 

iii..  24-26 68 

iv.,3,9 55 

iv.,  13  seg 93 

iv.,  19 45 

iv,,22 55 

v.,  9 98 

v.,  15 84 

v.,  15-19 92 

rl,l  seq 82 

vi.,2 82,84 

vi.,3 82,113 

vi.,4,G 82 

vi.,8 82,84 

vi.,12,13 124 

vi.,17, 18 82 

vi.,21 154 

vi.,22 82 

vi..23 123> 


IC 


Pnjre 

v'u.,1  seq 93 

vii.,4 82 

vii.,6 82,84 

viii.,6 84 

viii.,11 Ill 

viii.,16 61 

viii.,  24 89 

viii.,26 61 

ix.,3 91 

ix.,  25 79 

ix.,26 79,135 


X.,  9, 13 . 
x.,15. 
xi.,  2  . 


89 
47 
112 
120 
122 
149 


xi.,8 

xi.,  20 

xi.,25 120 

xii.,  2 77 

xii.,3 64 

xii.,  11 24 

xii.,  19 55,98 

xiii.,  11 84 

xiv.,14 113 

xiv.,22,23 i-   ,70 

XV., 4,5 '  47 

xv,,32 98 

xvi.,  1 104 

xvi.,3,5,6,7,8,9.47,54 

xvi.,7 138 

xvi.,9 135 

xvi.,  10-16....  47, 54 

xvi.,19 120 

xvi.,  23 140 


OR.  i.,  10 

i.,13 

i.,  18 

i.,  28 

ii.,  13-15 

ii.,  14, 15 

iii.,  6 

iii.,  17 

iv.,3,4,5 

iv.,8 

v.,  9 

vi.,1-6 

vii.,  5 

vii.,31 

vii.,  32 

viii.,6 110, 

viii.,  10, 11 

ix.,  3 

ix.,4 


126 

113 

90 

168 

67 

67 

84 

47 

67 

153 

99 

67 

43 

64 

146 

112 

106 

67 

93 

81 


188    LIGHTFOOT  OX  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 


Page 

1  Cou.  x.,-2 113 

"       X.,  IG  seq 47 

"      x.,25,  27 C7 

"      x.,32 135 

"      xi.,  28-34 68-9 

"  xi.,  29, 31, 32..    67 

"      xu.,2 64 

"      xii.,  4se5' 48,54 

"  xii.,13....113, 135 

"      xii.,28 115 

"      xiii.,8 48 

"      xiii.,9, 12 66 

"      xiv.,  7 75 

"      xiv.,  16 147 

"      xiv.,  20 75 

"      xiv.,  23 154 

"  xiv.,  24, 29....    68 

"      xiv.,36 72 

"      XV.,  2 81,89 

"  XV.,  4-20....  85, 86 

"      XV.,  22 84 

"      XV.,  24-28 48 

"      XV.,  40 75,76 

"      xv.,51 44 

"      xvi.,1,2 48 

"      xvi.,12 93 

"      xvi.,  15 152 

"      xvi.,  22 115 


2  Cor.  i.,  1  . . 
«      i.,3-8. 


i.,9 7 

i.,  13 

i.,  19 

i.,  20 

i.,23 

ii.,6 

ii.,14 

ii.,  15 

iii.,  1 

iii.,  2 

iii.,  5, 6 

iii.,  7  

iii.,  11 

iii.,  13  seq. 

iii.,  14 49, 

iii.,  18 

iv.,  2 

iv.,  3 

iv.,4 

iv.,  8 

iv.,  13 

iv.,  15 

v.,  6-11 

v.,14 


135 
49 

1-2 
64 

135 
45 

118 
93 

119 
90 
49 
64 
49 
49 
72 
49 

120 
49 

149 
49 

123 
65 
84 

Jll 
49 
83 


P.iee 

..  66 

..  66 

..  65 

..  50 

vii.,  10 77 


2  Con.  v.,  16., 
'•  vi.,  9  . . 
"  vi.,  10 . 
"   vii.,  7.. 


vii.,  11 

vii.,  13, 14. . . . 
viii.,10-12.... 

viii.,19 

ix.,  2-5 

ix.,  13 , 

x.,5 


99 
82 
50 
106 
50 
153 
125 


X.,  12 64,67 


X.,  13, 15. 16. 
xi.,  3 . . . . 
xi.,4.... 
xi.,9.... 
xi.,  16-18 
xii.,  1.. . . 
xii.,  2  seq. 
xii.,  2,  3.. 

xii.,  7 

xii.,  9  . . . 
xii.,  13  . . 

xii.,  13, 14 125 

xii.,  15 71 

xii.,  17 81 

xii.,  18 81.99 

xii.,  20  ... .  120, 148 

xiii.,9, 11 126 

xiii.,  14 40 


Gal, 


.,6. 


ii.,  16-21 83 

iii.,  3 83 

iii.,  6 55 

iii.,  10  seq 93 

iii.,  19 108 

iii.,  27 83,113 

iv.,20 91 

v.,  13 83 

v.,  20 120 

v.,24 83 


EriiES.  i.,  1 

'•       i.,  11,13 


37,168 
,..    83 

i.,23 52,96 

ii.,5,8 89 

ii.,  5, 6, 13, 14..    83 

iii.,  10 108 

iii.,  19 96 

iv.,  1,4,7 83 

iv.,13 96 

iv.,18 120 


Ephks.  iv.,  29. 

"        iv.,  30. 

"        v.,  15.. 

vi.,  12. 


Phil. 


i.,  13  . 
i.,14. 
L,  17 . 
ii..3.. 


Pnpe 

.  114 
.  83 
.  65 
.  151 

.  67 
.92-3 
.  120 
.  120 


Col. 


ii.,  6  seq 78 

ii.,9 98 

ii.,13 50 

ii.,  15...115, 120  (bis) 

ii.,30 45 

iii.,  2,^ 64 

iu.,^  seq 50 

iii.,  14 151 

iv.,2 138 

iv..2,3 114 

iv.,6 146,167 

iv.,  19 170  (bis) 

i.,  13 83 

L,  16,17 81,110 

i.,19 95 

ii.,  5 125 

ii.,8 120 

ii.,9 96 

ii.,9, 10 52 

ii.,11  seq 82 

ii..  16 127 

ii.,20 84 

iii.,  1,3 

iii.,3 

iii.,  8 

iii.,  13 

iii.,  15 

iv.,10 119,135 

iv.,  14 135 


82 

84 

152 

148 

83 


1  Thess,  ii.,4.. . . 
"  ii.,16... 

"  iv,,4... 

"  iv.,  6. . . 


50 
98 
85 
99 


2  Thess.  i.,  6 50 

"  ii.,  1,2 113 

"  ii.,  5  seq 97 

"  ii.,6 51 

ii.,7 51,151 

"  iii..  11..' 65 


lTiM.i.,4.. 
"      iii.,1. 


155 

24 

127 


Page 

1  TiM.iii.,11 104 

•'  iii.,13 150 

"  iii.,16 42,152 

•'  v.,4 148 

"  v.,19 24 

"  vi.,2 lOG 

"  vi.,  5 lOG 

"  vi.,17 149 

2  Tim.  i.,  7, 9 83 

'"      ii.,19 106 

"      iii.,4 149 

"      iv,,ll 135 

TiTi-.s  i.,  7 127 

"      i.,12 135 

"      ii.,  14..  181, 182, 184 
"      iii.,  5 83 

PniLEM.  2 15G 

"        24 135 

IIeb.  i.,  1 53 

"  i.,2 110 

"  ii.,10 110 

"  ii.,  IG, 123 

"  iii.,  11 5G 

"  iv.,3 5G 

"  iv.,  8 136 

"  v.,  2 152 

'•  v.,  12 152 

"  vi.,1 114 

"  vi.,7 Ill 

"  vi.,8, 16 106 

"  vii.,14 8G,  1,37 

"  vii.,  21-24 86 

"  viii.,8 137 

•'  viii.,  13 ". 50 


INDEX  I. 

Tnfre 

Heb.  ix..  1 106 

"    ix.i6-9,18 89 

"    ix.,  28 124 

'•    X.,  1 89,106 

"    x.,30 55 

"    xi.,10 97 

"    xi.,31 134 

'•    xii.,26 118 

James  i.,  15 77 

"      i.,  17 77 

"      ii.,2,3 50 

"       ii.,  23 55 

'•       ii.,25 134 

"       iii.,  5 123 

"       iii.,  14, 16 120 

"       v.,  9 148 

'•       v.,  IG 154 

"       v.,  20 55 

1  Pet,  i.,  3 83 

"      i.,  16 76 

"      i.,  18 83 

'•       ii.,4 113 

"      ii.,9 182,184 

"      ii.,10 79 

"      ii,,16 149 

"      ii.,21...: 83 

"      ii.,24 124 

"      iii.,  9 83 

"      iii.,  21 120 

"      iv.,8 55 

"      v.,  7 146,167 

"      v.,  13 135 

2  Pet.  ii.,  1,3 51 

"      ii.,13 121 

"      iii.,  12........  114 


189 

Pflge 

1  John  ii.,  1 58 

"  iv.,9,10,14...    81 

"        v.,  G 104 

"        v.,7 39-41 

v.,  9, 10 51 

JuDE  12 119,121  (bis) 

Rev.  i.,4 117 

••    i.,  15 51 

"    ii.,13 52 

"    ii.,26 117 

"    iii.,  12. 117 

"    iii.,  17 51,99 

"    iii.,21 117 

"    iv.,4 52 

"    iv.,  0 107 

"    iv.,11 152 

"    v.,  5 137 

"    vi.,C 142,144 

"    vii.,  5 137 

"    vii.,G 133 

"    vii.,  12, 14 97 

"    vii.,  15 62 

"    viii.,  10 107 

"    viii.,  12 116 

"    xi.,9,11 104 

"    xi.,  16 52 

"    xiii.,G 62 

"    xiv.,15, 16 112 

"    xvi.,  10 52 

"    xvii.,  1 97 

"    xvii.,  6,7 61 

"    xviii.,2 51 

"    xviii.,23 115 

"    xix.,9 106 

"    xxi.,  3 63 

"  xxi.,  14, 1 9  seq. . .    97 

"    x.xi.,24 90 


INDEX  II. 


A. 

Abelard  on  tTnoiiaioQ,  177  seq.,  178. 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  text  of,  43. 
^thiopic  rendering  of  iiriovaioq,  180. 
Alford  (Dean)  on  Revision,  56, 58,  G4. 
Ambiguities  of  expression,  151  seq. 
Ambrose  (St.)  on  iiriovawc,  175  seq. 
.\ntbrewes  (Bishop),  30. 
Anselm,  177, 
Antigenidas,  28. 
Antiochene  School,  169. 
Aorist  confused  with  perfect  80  seq. ;  its 
significance   in   St.  Paul,  82  ;  various 
misrenderings  of,  83  seq. 
Apphia,  Appia,  156. 

Archaisms  in  the  English  Version,  145 
seq. 

by,  108. 

by-and-by,  149. 

carefulness,  146. 

carriages,  147. 

chamberlain,  140. 

coasts,  148  seq. 

comforter,  60. 

debate,  148. 

deputy,  140. 

devotions.  150. 

dishonest}',  149. 

fetch  a  compass,  147. 

generation,  150. 

go  about  to,  151. 

grudge,  148. 

high-minded,  149. 

instantly,  149. 

let,  151. 

lewdness,  149. 

maliciousness,  149. 

minister,  147. 

nephew,  148. 

occupy,  52, 150. 

of,  107. 

offend,  offense,  150. 

prevent,  151. 

room,  53, 147-8. 

scrip,  147. 

thought,  145  seq. 

writing-table,  147. 

Q 


Armenian  rendering  of  iniovaioQ,  180. 

Arnold  (Mr.M.)  quoted,  159  seq. 

Article  (the  detinite),  neglect  of,  91  seq. ; 
insertion  of,  103  seq. ;  general  igno- 
rance of,  105  seq. 

Asiarchs,  140. 

Aspirate  (Hebrew)  omitted  in  Greek,  134. 

Athanasius  (St.)  on  iiziovaioc,  169. 

Augustine  (St.)  on  Jerome's  revision,  25, 
26, 28, 32 ;  on  the  heavenly  witnesses, 
41 ;  on  'nriovaiog,  178. 

Authorized  Version:  historical  parallel 
to,  29  seq. ;  translators'  forebodings  of, 
29 ;  never  authorized,  30 ;  gradual  re- 
ception of,  30  ;  itself  a  revision,  32  , 
faulty  text  of,  36  seq. ;  distinctions 
created  in,  46  seq. ;  distinctions  ob- 
literated in,  65  seq. ;  errors  of  gram- 
mar in,  80  seq. ;  errors  of  lexicography 
in.  118  seq. ;  its  caprice  in  proper 
names,  titles,  etc.,  128  seq. ;  archaisms 
in,  145  seq. ;  ambiguities  of  expression 
in,  151  seq. ;  faulty  English  in,  152 
seq. ;  editorial  errors  and  misprints  in, 
153  seq.;  corrections  in  later  editions 
of,  115, 155  seq. ;  variable  orthography 
of,  156  seq, ;  pure  English  of,  159  seq, 

-aioQ,  adjectives  in,  165, 

aiptiv,  124, 

UKkpaioc,  120. 

dWoQ,  iripog,  74  seq. 

avuKpiviiv,  avciKpiaiQ,  67  seq. 

avaTr'nrTtiv,  75  seq. 

uviviyKilv,  124. 

aaaapiov,  141  seq. 

avyd^itv,  123. 

avXf],  TToifivtj,  73. 

B. 

Barjona,  136  seq. 

Basil  (St.)  on  tTrtoiKTiog,  167, 169. 

Bentley  quoted,  91  seq. 

Bernard's  (St.)  controversy  with  Abelard, 

177, 178. 
Besaunt,  143. 
Beza,  179. 
Bible.     Sec  A  ulhorized  Version, 


192 


LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  REVISION  OF  THE  K  TEST. 


Bishops',  30,  41,  72,  73,  85,  114, 119, 
122,  129,  131,  139  (bis),  141,  153, 
154  (bis),  155. 
Coverdale's,  41,73, 114, 119, 122, 129, 

141. 
Geneva,  31 ,  73, 85, 114, 119, 122, 129, 
131,  139  (bis),  141,  153  ;  Testa- 
ment (1557),  41, 114, 119, 122, 125, 
140,  141 ;  Tomsou's  Testament, 
154, 179. 
Great,  41,73, 114, 119, 122, 130, 139, 

141. 
Kheims,  54, 73, 78, 119, 122, 140, 144, 

150, 153. 
Tvndale's,  41,  53,  72,  73,  78,  79,  80, 
"109,  114,  119,  122,  126,  141,  144, 
150, 151, 152, 179, 184. 
Wiclitt'c's    (and  Wicliffite),  78,  79, 
119,  122,  139,  140,  141,  143,  144, 
150, 153, 179. 
Breviary,  178. 
(iaaTciLfHi',  124. 
l3droc,  144. 
jSufiuQ,  6vaiaGri]ptor,  79. 

C. 

Calvin,  179. 

Cassianus,  177  seq. 

Christ  and  the  Christ,  93  seq. 

Chrysostom  (St.)  on  iTriovaiog,  170  seq. 

Coins,  rendering  of,  141  seq. 

Corinthians,  2d  Epistle  to  the,  recurrence 

of  words  in,  48  seq. 
Coverdale's  Bible.     See  Bible. 
Cretans,  Cretcs,  Cretians,  135. 
Cureton,  172. 
Cyprian  (St.);  41, 174. 
Cyril  (St.)  of  Alexandria  on  tTriovffiog, 

170;  on  inpiovaioQ,  181. 
Cvril  (St.)  of  Jerusalem  on  iinovaioQ, 

'  1G9. 
KaiiaQai,  107. 

Y^avavaioc,  Kavavirrjg,  121. 
Kardvv^ic,  Ka-avvaauv,  122. 
KaTapriCiiv ,  120. 
koXttoq,  ari'iQoQ,  74. 
Kupog,  144. 

Koipivot,  (nrvp!£tQ,73. 
KpivHv  and  its  compounds,  07  seq. 
KTaaQai,  KiKrljaQai,  85  seq. 
XolviK,  143, 144. 
Xwp«oi/,125,  ^ 

Damascene  (St.  John)  on  tTrtev^Jior,  170. 
Damasus,  Pope,  23, 28. 
Deaconesses,  104  seq. 


Didrachma,  143. 

Digamma,  ICG. 

Dionysius  Carthusianus,  177. 

Drachma,  143. 

0//yLtoe,Xa6c,79. 

Ci)vdpiov,  142  seq. 

Cid,  distuiguislied  from  inro,  107  seq. ;  its 

connection  Avith  Inspiration,  109  seq. ; 

with  the  doctrine  of  the  AVord,  110 

seq. ;  misrendered  with  the  accusative, 

111  seq.,  119  seq. 
hdiSoKoc,  daifiuptuv,  78  seq. 
Ciapipi^Kjdai,  123. 
£iKaiii}fia,  120. 
Some,  cuiprjjut,  77  seq. 
£ov\oi,  SiaKovoi,  73. 

E. 

Easter,  139. 

Egjqjtiau  Service-books,  173^. 

Egyptian  Versions,  rendering  of  ircipd- 

»C/\»/roc,  G2;  of  (TTTtXticfc,  120;  ofc— (- 

ovaiog,  173  seq.,  179. 
Elias,  Elijah,  131, 133. 
Ellicott  (Bishop)  on  Eevision,35,58,88. 
English  language,  present  knowledge  of 

the,  158  seq. 
Ephesians,  Epistle  to  the,  its  destination 

and  genuineness,  38. 
Ephrem  Sjtus,  173. 
Evangelists,  parallel  passages  in  the.  45, 

5C  seq.,  101, 103  seq.,  125, 138. 
elvat,  jivenQai,  7G  seq. 
fi'e  wrongly  translated,  112  seq. 
"EWrjv,  'EWtjVLari'iQ,  135. 
tv  wrongly  translated,  113. 
t^a'ipiTOQ,  182, 183. 
tTrepwrtjfia,  120. 
iiri  wrongly  translated,  112 ;  the  t  elided 

in  composition,  IGG. 
tmy(i/ft>(T«ti',  t7riyi'io(jiP,G(j  seq. 
iiri\ap.fidvKjQai,  123. 
iiTiovaa,  165, 1G6. 
iiriovaioQ,  163  seq. 
t7roi'(Tia»c»/C)  IIJ*^;  1C7. 
ipiOeia,  120. 

F. 

Five  Clergymen,  Revision  of  the,  58, 88 

seq. 
Fulke's  answer  to  Martin,  130  seq. 

G. 
Gehenna,  Hades,  78-9. 
Gender,  change  of,  disregarded,  72. 
Geneva  Bible,  Testament.     See  Bible. 


INDEX  II. 


93 


Gothic  Version  of  tTTtoi'fftoc,  180, 
Greek,  Grecian,  Greece,  Grecia,  135. 
Greek  forms  of  Hebrew  names,  133  seq. 
Greek  scliolarship  in  England,  158  seq. 
Gregory  the  Great  on  the  Latin  Versions, 

28. 
Gregory  Nyssen  on  lirioviyioc,  1C9. 
Grote  (Professor),  155. 
Gutturals  (Hebrew),  how  dealt  with  in 

Greek,  133. 
yjvaJCTKtJv,  G5, 66. 
ypaiifianvc,  140. 

H. 
Hare  (^Vrch deacon),  58. 
Hebrews,  Gospel  of  the,  its  origin  and 

value,  171  seq. ;  rendering oi iniovaioc, 

171, 
Heloise,  177. 
Hendiadys,  115. 
Hilary  (St.)  on  tTriovaioc,  178. 
HypaUage,  114  seq. 

I. 
Idols  of  the  cave,  market-place,  88  seq. 
Imperfect  tense  mistranslated,  90  seq. 
Isidore  of  Seville,  30. 
Ismenias,  28, 
\ip6v,  vaoc,  7D. 
'upoavKiiv,  126. 
icravai,  123, 


Jacob  of  Sarug,  173  seq, 

James,  Jacob,  136, 

Jeremy,  Jeremias,  135. 

Jerome  (St.)  revises  the  Latin  Bible,  23 ; 
his  detractors  and  opponents,  24  seq., 
32 ;  version  of  the  Book  of  Jonah,  25 ; 
corrects  the  text,  25  seq.,  33, 39 ;  does 
not  translate,  but  revise,  26 ;  his  Jew- 
ish teachers,  26 ;  his  devotion  to  the 
work,  27  seq. ;  gradual  reception  of 
his  version,  28  seq.,  34 ;  his  rendering 
of  irapa.K\iTOQ,  61 ;  of  tiziovaioc,  176 
seq.;  of  iripiovatoc,  176, 181  seq.,  182 
seq. 

Jerusalem,  spelling  of,  134. 

Jesus,  Joshua,  136. 

Jewry,  138. 

Johanan,  John,  etc.,  136  seq. 

John,  the  father  of  St.  Peter,  137. 

John  (St.),  disciples  of,  42. 

John  (St.),  Gospel  of:  its  genuineness, 
38;  minute  traits  in,  74,  100;  coinci- 
dences with  the  Revelation,  54, 62  seq. ; 


with  the  First  Epistle,  54,  58  seq.,  62 ; 
later  than  the  other  Gospels,  87. 

John  (St.),  Apocalypse  of:  broken  syn- 
tax of,  117  seq.  See  John  {St.'),  Gos- 
pel of. 

Jona,  two  distinct  names,  137. 

Jiide,  Juda,  Judah,  Judas,  137. 

Juvencus,  174. 


Laodiceans,  Epistle  to  the,  37, 38. 

Latin,  Old,  false  readings  in,  24  seq. ;  re- 
tained in  Service-books,  31 ;  rendering 
of  TrapctKXijroc,  61 ;  of  (nriXctotc,  120 ; 
of  tTTioixjiog,  174  seq. ;  of  Trfpiovaioc, 
184;  various  reading  in  the  Lord's 
I'rayer,  177. 

Latin  Vulgate.     See  Jerome  (St.). 

Latinisms,  145  seq.,  152, 159  seq. 

Lindisfarne  Gospels,  179. 

Lord's  Prayer,  the  early  use  of,  163.  See 
also  Appendix  (jx/ss/ni). 

Lucas,  Luke,  135. 

Luke  (St.),  Gospel  of,  two  editions  of,  43 
seq. ;  its  classical  language,  102, 143. 

Luther's  Bible,  41, 179. 

\vxvog,  (poJc,  106  seq. 

M. 

Magdalene,  spelling  and  pronunciation 
of,  135. 

JIaldonatus,  179. 

Marcus,  Mark,  135. 

Mark  (St.),  Gospel  of,  the  conclusion  of 
the,  42. 

Marsh  (Mr.)  on  revision,  etc.,  88  seq., 
158,160,161. 

Martin's  (Gregorj-)  attack  on  English 
Bibles,  130  seq." 

Mary,  Miriam,  136. 

Matthew  (St.),  Gospel  of,  peculiarities  of 
language  in,  86  seq.,  103 ;  its  relation 
to  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  171, 

Measure,  in  what  sense  used,  143, 144, 

Metaphors  obscured,  124  seq. 

Milman  (Dean),  error  of,  177. 

IModius,  144. 

Mount,  Sermon  on  the,  its  locaUty,  101 
seq. 

Miinster's  Latin  Bible,  129. 

fikpifiva,  liiptfivav,  145  seq.,  167 ;  dis- 
tinguished from  niXeii',  146. 

/xtrdvoia,  ^£ra/i£\«(a,76. 

fierpijrljg,  144.  ' 

fioixacOai,  /jtoixfvBtjvai,  73  seq. 

l.iop(pr],  <T\'f//u«,77  seq. 


194    LIGHTFOOT  ON  A  FRESH  MEVISION  OF  THE  N.  TEST. 


N. 
Nicene  Creed,  ir.isunderstanding  of,    10 

seq. 
Nicolas  of  Lyra,  177. 
vriirioi,  TraiSia,  75. 
vofioc,  6  vojiOQ,  93. 

O. 

Official  titles,  rendering  of,  139  seq. 

Origen  on  tiriovffioQ,  163  seq.,  1G8  seq. ; 
on  ■jTipiovaioc,  180  seq. ;  liis  method 
of  interpretation,  1G8 ;  general  adop- 
tion of  his  interpretations,  1G9. 

v56s  (»y),96seq. 

olSa,  yivoJCFKuj,  iiviara/jat,  etc.,  05  seq. 

ovofxa  (to),  98  seq. 

oTTTctviaQai,  12G. 

t'pyn  ('if).  98  seq. 

upoc  (ro),  101  seq. 

-ovaioQ,  adjectives  in,  derived  from  -wi', 
1G5, 183 ;  from  ovcria,  1G5. 

oiirtKf ,  74. 


Papias,  42, 157. 

Paronomasia,  G4  seq. 

Paul  (St.),  his  use  of  the  aorist,  82  seq. ; 
his  vision,  8G  seq. ;  his  teaching  of 
redemption,  92;  his  conception  of  law, 
93 ;  his  thorn  in  the  Hesh,  125. 

Peculium,  pcculiaris,  183  seq. 

I'eculiar,  183  seq. 

Perfect,  confused  with  the  aorist,  81 ; 
misrendered,  85  seq. 

Peshito.     See  Si/riac  Versions. 

Pfeiffer,  175. 

Phenice,  Phoenix,  Phceiiicia,  138. 

I'leroma,  the,  95  seq. 

I'repositions,  in  composition  neglected, 
71  seq.;  variation  of,  disregarded, 72 ; 
mistranslations  of,  107  seq. 

Present  tense,  mistranslated,  89  seq. 

Plumptre  (Professor)  on  Revision,  35, 159. 

Proper  names,  how  to  be  dealt  with,  128 
seq. ;  should  conform  in  the  O.  T.  and 
N.T.,  131  seq.;  whether  to  be  trans- 
lated or  reproduced,  138  seq. 

Tralc,  servant,  124. 

TrapaKXjjroe,  58  seq. 

irdpemQ,  119  seq. 

■KipiovaiaaixoQ,  181. 

■Kipiovmog,  163, 168, 180  seq. 

TTipiTToirjaiQ,  181  seq. 

TT/Xoiov,  ro  vKolov,  103  seq. 

TTvtvfia,  wind,  spirit,  63  seq. 

TToXAoi,  01  ttjXXoi,  etc.,  92  seq. 


Trpayixa  (ro),  99  seq. 
Trpo[3il3d(^tiv,  120. 
irpotpijTTjg  (o),95. 
irvXwvig,  126. 
TTTipvyiov  (to),  100. 
TTwpovv,  TtdtptiiaiQ,  120. 
(paivtiv,  (paivtaQai,  115  seq. 
<paivofiai  uiv,  ^aivoyiai  ilvai,  110. 
(p9ivoirojpiv6(;,  119. 
0WV)/,  (pdoyyCg,  75. 

P. 

Pabbi,  Eabboni,  139. 

Pahab,  spelling  of,  134. 

Redemption,  92. 

Revision  (the  new)  of  the  English  Bible, 
historical  parallel  to, 31  seq.;  gloomy 
forebodings  of,  31 ;  exaggerated  views 
of,  32 ;  antagonism  to,  32 ;  disastrous 
results  anticipated  from,  33 ;  ultimate 
acceptance  of,  34  seq. ;  need  of,  34  seq. 
(passim) ;  prospects  of,  151  seq. ;  con- 
servative tendencies  of  rules  aflecting, 
160  seq. ;  liberal  conditions  of,  161 ; 
favorable  circumstances  attending,  161 
seq. 

Roberts  (Dr.),  171. 

Rome,  bishops  of,  their  use  of  the  Latin 
Versions,  28  seq. 

Rufinus,  25. 

S. 
Salvation,  how  regarded   in   the   New 

Testament,  89, 90. 
Saron.     See  Sharon, 
Second  advent,  96  seq. 
Shamefaced,  shamefast,  15G. 
Sharon,  the,  100  seq.,  133. 
Shechinah,  oktivIj,  63  seq. 
Shibboleth,  133. 
Sower,  parable  of  the,  56-7. 
Stanley  (Dean),  101  seq. 
Stater,  143. 
Substantia,  174. 
Suicer,  168. 

Supersubstantialis,  109, 175, 176  seq.,  177. 
Symmachus,  183. 
Synonyms,  65, 73  seq. 
Syrian  Service-books,  173. 
Syrian  Versions : 

Ciuretonian,  rendering  of  Tra/DaicXjjroc, 
61 ;  of  t;r«oi^(TJoc,  171, 173  (bis),  180. 

Jerusalem, rendering  of  tTnovaiog,  172. 

Peshito,  rendering  of  irapdKXrjTog,  61 ; 
ofKavavaioQ  and  XavavaTog,  122; 
of  iTTiovmoQ,  172, 173, 179. 


INDEX  11. 


195 


Philoxenian  (Harclean)  rendering  of 
sirikaotg,  120;  of  imoixjiog,  172 
seq. 

<ja(i^aTa,  127. 

adrov,  144. 

at^ofxtvoi,  126. 

aKrjvi),  <TKr]vovv,  63  seq. 

airtKOvkaTwp,  141. 

(tttIXoi,  (TTTiXa^tc,  120. 

arepsiofia,  125  seq. 

ffiiXaywytiv,  120. 

aw^ofitvoi  (o'i),  80  seq. 

rtaO,  181  seq. 

T. 
Talent,  144. 

Tenses  wrongly  rendered,  80  seq. 
Tertullian,  174. 

Text,  importance  of  a  correct,  39  seq. 
Textual  criticism,  its  tendencies,  36  seq. 
Teutonic  Versions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer, 

179. 
Theodoret  on  iiriovaioQ,  170. 
Theophylact  on  tTriovaiog,  171  seq. 
Tholuck,  164, 168. 
Thomas,  Acts  of,  173. 
Trench  (Archbishop)  on  the  Authorized 

Version,  35,  52, 58, 74, 84, 119, 122, 124, 

131,146,148,159. 


Trent,  Council  of,  33, 179. 
Tyndale's  Bible.     See  Bible, 
GtXov  {to),  126. 
0£X>7jUa,98  seq. 
Opiafi^tvuv,  119. 


U. 


Urbane,  135. 

vXt),  123. 

vTTo,  Sid,  107  seq. 


Various  readings,  41  seq. 

Victorinus  on  i^riovaioc,  174 ;  on  inpiov- 

ffioc,  181. 
Vulgate.     See  Jerome,  (St.). 

W. 

Wages  of  laborers,  142  seq. 

Way,  the,  96  seq. 

Westcott  (Dr.),  30  seq.,  103. 

Wicliffe's  Bible.     See  Bible. 

Witnesses,  the  three  heavenly,  40  seq. 

Wrath,  the,  98  seq. 

Wright  (Professor),  172, 173  (bis). 


Zurich  Latin  Bible,  41, 179. 
?(pa,  Qi]pia,  73. 


THE   END. 


ON  THE 


AUTHORIZED  VERSION 


NEW  TESTAMENT 


IN    CONNECTION 


WITH   SO^IE   RECENT  PROPOSALS   FOR  ITS   REVISION. 


BY 

RICHARD  CHENEVIX  TRENCH,  D.D., 

AKOHBISnOr   OF  DUBLIN. 


NEW   YORK: 

HARPER    &    BROTHERS,   PUBLISHERS, 

FBAMKLIN    8QUAKE. 

1873. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  p^OE 

I.  Introductory  Remarks 5 

II.  On    the    necessary   Inferiority    of   Translations    to    their 

Originals 13 

III.  On  the  English  of  the  Authorized  Version 31 

IV.  On   some   Questions    of   Translation,  and    ti:e   Answers   to 

THEM  WHICH  OUR  TRANSLATORS   GAVE Gl 

V.  On  some  unnecessary  Distinctions  introduced 74 

VX  On  some  real  Distinctions  effaced 90 

VIL  On    some   better  Renderings   forsaken,  or   placed   in   the 

Margin 99 

VIII.  On  some  Errors  of  Greek  Grammar 115 

IX.  On  some  questionable  Renderings  of  Words 134 

X.  On  some  incorrect  Renderings  of  Words  and  Passages 147 

XI.  On  some  Charges  unjustly  brought  against  the  Authorized 

Version 1G3 

XII.  On  the  best  Means  of  carrying  out  a  Revision. 175 

Appendix 187 

Indices 191 

I.  Principal  Texts  considered. li91 

II.  Greek  Words 193 

III.  Other  Words 194 


ON   THE  AUTHORIZED  VERSION 


NEW  TESTAMENT. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTOEY   EEMAEKS. 

It  is  clear  that  the  question,  Are  we,  or  are  we  not,  to  have 
a  new  translation  of  ScrijDture  ?  or  rather — since  few  would 
propose  this  who  did  not  Avish  to  lift  anchor  and  loosen  from 
its  moorings  the  whole  religious  life  of  the  English  people — 
Shall  we,  or  shall  we  not,  have  a  new  revision  of  the  Author- 
ized Version  ?  is  one  which  is  presenting  itself  more  and  more 
familiarly  to  the  minds  of  men.  This,  indeed,  is  not  by  any 
means  the  first  time  that  this  question  has  been  earnestly  dis- 
cussed; but  that  which  distinguishes  the  present  agitation 
of  the  matter  from  preceding  ones  is,  that  on  all  former  occa- 
sions the  subject  was  only  debated  among  scholars  and  di- 
vines, and  awoke  no  interest  in  circles  beyond  them.  The 
present  is  apparently  the  first  occasion  on  which  it  has  taken 
serious  hold  of  the  popular  mind.  But  now  indications  of 
the  interest  which  it  is  awakening  reach  us  from  every  side. 
America  is  sending  us  the  instalments — it  must  be  owned 
not  very  encouraging  ones — of  a  new  version  as  fast  as  she 
can.*    The  wish  for  a  revision  has  for  a  considerable  time 

*  With  more  haste,  it  is  to  he  feared,  than  good  speed.  It  is  certainly  not 
very  encouraging,  in  respect  of  the  equipment  of  those  who  undertake  the " 
work,  when  in  the  American  Bible  Union's  version  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, published  with  an  enormous  apparatus  of  what  present  themselves  as 


C  THENGH  ON  A  TJTIL  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

been  working  among  Dissenters  here;  by  the  voice  of  one  of 
these  it  has  lately  made  itself  heard  in  Parliament,  and  by 
the  mouth  of  a  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  in  Convoca- 
tion. Our  Reviews,  and  not  those  only  which  are  specially 
dedicated  to  religious  subjects,  begin  to  deal  with  the  ques- 
tion of  revision.  There  are,  or  a  little  while  since  there  were, 
frequent  letters  in  the  newspapers,  either  urging  such  a  step, 
or  remonstrating  against  it ;  few  of  them,  it  is  true,  of  much 
value  or  weight,  yet,  at  the  same  time,  showing  how  many 
minds  are  now  occupied  with  the  subject. 

It  is  manifestly  a  question  of  such  immense  importance, 
the  issues  depending  on  a  right  solution  of  it  are  so  vast  and 
solemn,  that  it  may  well  claim  a  temperate  and  wise  discus- 
sion, Nothing  is  gained,  on  the  one  hand,  by  vague  and  gen- 
eral charges  of  inaccuracy  brought  against  our  version ;  they 
requii'e  to  be  supported  by  detailed  proofs.  Nothing,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  gained  by  charges  and  insinuations  against 
those  who  urge  a  revision,  as  though  they  desired  to  undei'- 
mine  the  foundations  of  the  religious  life  and  faith  of  En- 
gland ;  were  Socinians  in  disguise,  or  Papists — Socinians  who 
hoped  that,  in  another  translation,  the  witness  to  the  divinity 

learned  notes,  we  fall,  in  the  fifth  page,  upon  this  note  [on  i.,  9,  "Thou  hast 
loved  righteousness,  and  hated  iniquity"]  :  "  jJyaTrijcrac  ....  Koi  i/^iarjffag. 
These  participles  are  usually  rendered  by  verbs. "  The  translator  congratu- 
lates himself  that  the  errata  are  few.  Running  over  a  few  of  the  notes  I  de- 
tected these  :  larKpdvoffaQ,  p.  9  ;  ui.ioi6TETa,  p.  21  ;  ftorjGiav,  do.  ;  Trovepag, 
pp.  14,  53  ;  (l>0Ti<r6ivTss,  p.  55  ;  KaTaTr69t]aav,  p.  64  ;  airovSaaofiev  (Heb.  iv., 
11),  p.  19;  TrXavojUfVOtf,  p.  21 ;  oioTipiag, -p.  27 ;  dvriKoxiac  Y>.  32 ;  aKovfit- 
yoi,  p.  73;  ^taS^Kf v,  p.  46  ;  fitfiaprupiTai,]^.' 58;  epfiivtvontvog,  p.  BO  ;  ev\6- 
yiKf,  p.  31 ;  KaTOiiravae,  p.  19  ;  KaTdaxoiJiev,^).  15 — all  these,  except  perhaps 
one  or  two,  testifying  for  themselves  that  they  are  not  mere  printer's  errata  ; 
such  I  have  omitted.  The  Ephesians  j^ields  a  similar  harvest :  as  x^^P^v, 
Xaipov,  p.  4  ;  tKKrjpuiQtuiv,  ib.  ;  ti/ayyaXt^w,  p.  5  ;  ivepyia,  p.  6  ;  fivvrepiov,  p. 
3 ;  Epiphanias,  p.  4  ;  avvt^wTrolcae,  p.  7 ;  i^oTroitae,  bis,  p.  8 ;  Trpiroifiaaiv,  p. 
9  ;  TTopoo),  p.  19  ;  tvipyrjm,  p.  6. 

[In  justice  to  the  Bible  Union,  I  beg  leave  to  add  that  the  work  referred  to 
belongs  to  its  early  publications,  and  that  this  society  should  be  judged  rather 
by  the  New  Testament  which  has  since  been  completed,  and  by  the  scholarly 
works  of  Dr.  Conant  on  Job,  Genesis,  Psalms,  and  Proverbs,  prepared  for,  and 
published  by  the  Bible  Union. — P.  S.] 


INTROD  UCTOR  T  RE2IAItES.  7 

of  the  Sou  and  of  the  Spirit  might  prove  less  clear  than  in 
the  present — Papists  who  desired  that  the  authority  of  the 
English  Scripture,  the  only  Scripture  accessible  to  the  great 
body  of  the  people,  might  be  so  shaken  and  rendered  so 
doubtful,  that  men  would  be  driven  to  their  Church,  and  to 
its  authority,  as  the  only  authority  that  remained.  As  little 
is  the  matter  profited,  or  in  any  way  brought  nearer  to  a  set- 
tlement, by  sentimental  appeals  to  the  fact  that  this,  which 
it  is  now  jDroposed  to  alter,  has  been  the  Scripture  of  our 
childhood,  in  which  we  and  so  many  generations  before  us 
first  received  the  tidings  of  everlasting  life.  All  this,  well 
as  it  may  deserve  to  be  considered,  yet,  as  argument  at  all 
deciding  the  question,  will  sooner  or  later  have  to  be  cleared 
away ;  and  the  facts  of  the  case,  apart  from  cries,  and  insinu- 
ations, and  suggestions  of  evil  motives,  and  appeals  to  the 
religious  passions  and  prejudices  of  the  day — apart,  too,  from 
feelings  which  in  themselves  demand  the  highest  respect,  will 
have  to  be  dealt  with  in  that  spirit  of  seriousness  and  ear- 
nestness which  a  question  afiecting  so  profoundly  the  whole 
moral  and  spiritual  life  of  the  English  people,  not  to  speak 
of  nations  which  are  yet  unborn,  abundantly  deserves. 

It  is  no  main  and  leading  purpose  in  the  pages  which  follow 
either  to  advocate  a  revision  or  to  dissuade  one ;  but  rather 
I  have  proposed  to  myself  to  consider  the  actual  worth  of  our 
present  translation ;  its  strength,  and  also  any  weaknesses 
which  may  afiect  that  sti'ength ;  its  beauty,  and  also  the 
blemishes  which  impair  that  beauty  in  part ;  the  grounds  on 
which  a  new  revision  of  it  may  be  demanded ;  the  inconven- 
iences, difiiculties,  the  dangers  it  may  be,  which  would  at- 
tend such  a  revision;  some  of  the  rules  and  principles  accord- 
ing to  which  it  would  need,  if  undertaken  at  all,  to  be  carried 
out ;  and  thus,  so  far  as  this  lies  in  my  power,  to  assist  oth- 
ers, who  may  not  have  been  able  to  give  special  attention  to 
this  subject,  to  form  a  decision  for  themselves.  I  will  not,  in 
so  doing,  pretend  that  my  own  mind  is  entirely  in  equilibri- 
um on  the  subject.     On  the  whole,  I  am  persuaded  that  a  re- 


8  TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

vision  ought  to  come;  I  am  convinced  that  it  will  come. 
Not,  however,  let  us  trust,  as  yet ;  for  we  are  not  as  yet  in 
any  respect  prepared  for  it ;  the  Greek  (I  mean  that  special 
Hellenistic  Greek  here  required),  this,  and  the  English  no 
less,  which  w^ould  be  needful  to  bring  this  work  to  a  success- 
ful end,  might,  it  is  to  be  feared,  be  wanting  alike.  There  is 
much  of  crude  and  immature  in  nearly  all  the  contributions 
which  have  been,  and  for  some  time  yet  will  be  made,  to  this 
object.  Nor,  certainly,  do  I  underrate  the  other  difficulties 
which  would  beset  such  an  enterprise;  they  look,  some  of 
them,  the  more  serious  to  me  the  more  I  contemplate  them. 
Still,  believing  that  this  mountain  of  difficulty  will  have  to  be 
surmounted,  I  can  only  trust  and  confidently  hope  that  it, 
like  so  many  other  mountains,  will  not,  on  nearer  approach, 
pi'ove  so  formidable  as  at  a  distance  it  appears.  Only  let  the 
Church,  when  the  due  time  shall  arrive,  address  herself  to 
this  work  with  earnest  prayer  for  the  divine  guidance,  her 
conscience  bearing  her  witness  that  in  no  spirit  of  idle  inno- 
vation, that  only  out  of  dear  love  to  her  Lord  and  his  truth, 
and  out  of  an  allegiance  to  that  truth  which  overbears  every 
other  consideration,  with  an  earnest  longing  to  present  his 
Word,  whereof  she  is  the  guardian,  in  all  its  sincerity,  to  her 
children,  she  has  undertaken  this  hard  and  most  perilous 
task,  and  in  some  way  or  other  every  difficulty  will  be  ovei'- 
come.  Whatever  pains  and  anxieties  the  work  may  cost  her, 
she  will  feel  herself  abundantly  rewarded  if  only  she  is  able 
to  offer  God's  Word  to  her  children,  not  indeed  free  from  all 
marks  of  human  infirmity  clinging  to  its  outward  form — for 
we  shall  have  God's  treasure  in  earthen  vessels  still — but 
with  some  of  these  blemishes  which  she  now  knows  of  re- 
moved, and  altogether  approaching  nearer  to  that  which  she 
desires  to  see  it,  namely,  a  work  without  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or 
any  such  thing — a  perfect  copy  of  an  archetype  that  is  perfect. 
In  the  mean  time,  while  the  matter  is  still  in  suspense 
and  debate,  while  it  occuj^ies,  as  it  needs  must,  the  anxious 
thoughts  of  many,  it  can  not  misbecome  those  who  have  been 


IXTROD  rCTOR  Y  liEMARES.  9 

specially  led  by  their  duties  or  their  inclinations  to  a  more 
close  comparison  of  the  English  Version  with  the  original 
Greek,  to  offer  whatever  they  have  to  offer,  be  that  little  or 
much,  for  the  helping  of  others  toward  a  just  and  dispassion- 
ate judgment,  and  one  founded  upon  evidence,  in  regard  to 
the  question  at  issue.  And  if  they  consider  that  a  revision 
ought  to  come,  or,  whether  desirable  or  not,  that  it  will  come, 
they  must  wish  to  throw  in  any  contribution  which  they 
have  to  make  toward  the  better  accomplishing  of  this  ob- 
ject. Assuming  that  they  have  any  right  to  mingle  in  the 
controversy  at  all,  they  may  reasonably  hope  that,  even  if 
much  which  they  bring  has  long  ago  been  brought  forward 
by  others,  or  must  be  set  aside  from  one  cause  or  another, 
yet  that  something  will  remain,  and  will  survive  that  rigor- 
ous proof  to  which  every  suggestion  of  change  should  bo 
submitted.  And  in  a  matter  of  such  high  concernment  as 
this  the  least  is  much.  To  have  cast  in  even  a  mite  into 
this  treasury  of  the  Lord,  to  have  brought  one  smallest  stone 
which  it  is  permitted  to  build  into  the  walls  of  his  house,  to 
have  detected  one  smallest  blemish  that  would  not  otherwise 
have  been  removed,  to  have  made  in  any  way  whatever  a  sin- 
gle suggestion  of  lasting  value  toward  the  end  here  in  view, 
is  something  for  which  to  be  forever  thankful.  It  is  in  that 
intention,  with  this  hojio,  that  I  have  ventured  to  publish 
these  pages. 

The  work,  indeed,  which  I  thus  undertake,  can  not  be  re- 
garded as  a  welcome  one.  There  is  often  a  sense  of  some- 
thing ungenerous,  if  not  actually  unjust,  in  passing  over  large 
portions  of  our  Version,  where  all  is  clear,  correct,  lucid,  hap- 
py, awakening  continual  admiration  by  the  rhythmic  beauty 
of  the  periods,  the  instinctive  art  with  which  the  style  rises 
and  falls  with  its  subject,  the  skillful  surmounting  of  difficul- 
ties the  most  real,  the  diligence  and  success  with  which  al- 
most all  which  was  best  in  preceding  translations  has  been 
in  it  retained  and  embodied ;  the  constant  solemnity  and  se- 
riousness which,  by  some  nameless  skill,  is  made  to  rest  upon 


1 0        TRENCH  ON  A  UTR.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

all ;  in  passing  over  all  this  and  much  more  with  a  few  gen- 
eral words  of  recognition,  and  then  stopping  short  and  urging 
some  single  blemish  or  inconsistency,  and  dwelling  upon  and 
seeming  to  make  much  of  this,  which  often  in  itself  is  so  lit- 
tle ;  for  the  flaws  pointed  out  are  frequently  so  small  and  so 
slight  that  it  might  almost  seem  as  if  the  objector  had  arm- 
ed his  eye  with  a  microscope  for  the  purpose  of  detecting 
that  which  otherwise  would  have  escaped  notice,  and  which, 
even  if  it  were  faulty,  might  well  have  been  suffered  to  pass 
by,  unchallenged  and  lost  sight  of,  in  the  genei'al  beauty  of 
the  whole.  The  Avork  of  Momus  is  never,  or  at  least  never 
ought  to  be,  other  than  an  ungracious  one.  Still  less  do  we 
welcome  the  ofiice  of  fault-finder  when  that  whose  occasional 
petty  flaws  we  are  jjointing  out  has  claims  of  special  grati- 
tude, and  reverence,  and  affection  from  us.  It  seems  at  once 
an  unthankfulness  and  almost  an  impiety  to  dwell  on  errors 
in  that  to  which  we  for  ourselves  owe  so  much;  to  which 
the  whole  religious  life  of  our  native  land  owes  so  much ; 
which  has  been  the  nurse  and  fosterer  of  our  national  piety 
for  hundreds  of  years ;  which,  associated  with  so  much  that 
is  sad  and  joyful,  sweet  and  solemn,  in  the  heart  of  every 
one,  appeals  as  much  to  our  affections  as  to  our  reason. 

But,  admitting  all  this,  we  may  still  reconcile  ourselves  to 
this  task  by  such  considerations  as  the  following ;  and,  first, 
that  a  passing  by  of  the  very  much  which  is  excellent,  with 
a  dwelling  on  the  very  little  which  is  otherwise,  lies  in  the 
necessity  of  the  task  undertaken.  What  is  good,  what  is  per- 
fect, may  have,  and  ought  to  have,  its  goodness  freely  and 
thankfully  acknowledged  ;  but  it  offers  comparatively  little 
matter  for  observation.  It  is  easy  to  exhaust  the  language 
of  admiration,  even  when  that  admiration  is  intelligently  and 
thoughtfully  rendered.  We  are  not  tempted  to  pause  till  we 
meet  with  something  which  challenges  dissent,  nor  can  we 
avoid  being  mainly  occupied  with  this. 

And  then,  secondly,  if  it  be  urged  that  many  of  the  objec- 
tions made  arc  small  and  trivial,  it  can  only  be  replied  that 


INTB  OD  UCTOR  Y  KEMAKKS.  1 1 

nothing  is  really  small  or  trivial  whicli  has  to  do  with  the 
Word  of  God,  which  helps  or  hinders  the  exactest  setting 
forth  of  that  Word.  That  Word  lends  an  importance  and  a 
dignity  to  every  thing  connected  with  it.  The  more  deeply 
we  are  persuaded  of  the  inspiration  of  Holy  ScrijDture,  and 
of  the  extent  of  this  inspiration,  the  more  intolerant  we  shall 
be  of  any  lets  and  hinderances  to  the  arriving  at  a  perfect 
understanding  of  that  which  the  mouth  of  God  has  spoken. 
In  setting  forth  his  Word  in  another  language  from  that  in 
which  it  was  first  uttered,  we  may  justly  desire  such  an  ap- 
proximation to  perfection  as  the  instrument  of  language — to 
which  so  much  of  imperfection  cleaves — will  allow ;  and  this 
not  merely  in  greatest  things,  but  in' smallest. 

Nor  yet  need  the  occasional  shortcomings  of  our  transla- 
tors be  noted  in  any  spirit  of  disrespect  to  them,  or  dispar- 
agement of  their  work.  Some  of  the  errors  into  which  they 
fell  were  inevitable,  and  belonged  in  no  proper  sense  to  them 
more  than  to  the  whole  age  in  which  they  lived,  as,  for  in- 
stance, in  the  matter  of  the  Greek  article.  Unless  we  were 
to  demand  a  miracle,  and  that  their  scholarship  should  have 
been  altogether  on  a  different  level  from  that  of  their  age, 
this  could  not  have  been  otherwise.  We  may  reasonably  re- 
quire of  such  a  company  of  men,  undertaking  so  great  and 
solemn  a  work,  that  their  knowledge  should  approve  itself 
on  a  level  with  the  very  best  which  their  age  could  supply ; 
even  as  it  does ;  but  more  than  this  it  would  be  unfair  and 
absurd  to  demand.  If  other  of  their  mistakes  might  have 
been  avoided,  as  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  predecessors  or 
contemporaries  did  avoid  them,  and  yet  were  not  avoided 
by  them,  this  only  shows  that  the  marks  of  human  weakness 
and  infirmity,  which  cleave  to  every  work  of  men,  cleave 
also  to  theirs.  Nor  will  I  refrain  from  adding,  to  preoccupy 
that  charge  of  presumption,  which  is  so  ready  at  hand  to  cast 
in  the  face  of  any  one  who  objects  to  any  part  of  their  work, 
that  he  who  ventures  to  do  this  does  not  in  this  presumptu- 
ously affirm  himself  a  better  scholar  than  they  were.  He 
for  the  most  part  onlv  draws  on  the  accumulated  stores  of 

R 


12         TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VFHSION  OF  N£W  TESTAMENT. 

the  knowledge  of  Greek,  which  have  been  laboriously  got  to- 
gether in  the  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  that  have  elapsed 
since  their  work  was  done ;  he  only  claims  to  be  an  inheritor 
in  some  sort  of  the  cares  specially  devoted  to  the  elucidation 
of  the  meaning  of  Holy  Scripture  during  this  period.  It 
would  be  little  to  the  honor  of  those  ages  if  they  had  made 
no  advances  in  this  knowledge ;  it  would  be  little  to  the 
honor  of  our  own  if  we  did  not  profit  by  their  acquisitions. 
What  our  translators  said  on  this  point  concerning  those  who 
went  before  them,  we,  or  those  who  come  after  us,  may  in 
turn  say  of  them ;  and  I  can  not  do  better  than  quote  here 
the  very  words  in  which  they  disclaimed  for  their  work  that 
it  implied  any  disjiaragement  of  those  upon  whose  labors  they 
rather  were  entering  with  praise  to  God,  and  with  thankful 
gratitude  to  them :  "  We  ai'e  so  far  off  from  condemning  any 
of  their  labors  that  travailed  before  us  in  this  kind,  .  .  .  that 
we  acknowledge  them  to  have  been  raised  uj)  of  God  for  the 
building  and  furnishing  of  his  Church,  and  that  they  deserve 
to  be  liad  of  us  and  of  posterity  in  everlasting  remembrance. 
.  .  .  Blessed  be  they,  and  most  honored  be  their  name,  that 
break  the  ice,  and  give  the  onset  upon  that  which  helpeth 

forward  to  the  saving  of  souls Yet  for  all  that,  as 

nothing  is  begun  and  perfected  at  the  same  time,  and  the 
later  thoughts  are  thought  to  be  the  wiser ;  so  if  we,  build- 
ing upon  their  foundation  that  went  before  us,  and  being 
holpen  by  their  labors,  do  endeavor  to  make  that  better  which 
they  left  so  good,  no  man,  we  are  sure,  hath  cause  to  mislike 
us ;  they,  we  persuade  ourselves,  if  they  were  alive,  would 

thank  us Of  one  and  the  same  book  of  Aristotle's 

Ethics  there  are  extant  not  so  few  as  six  or  seven  several 
translations.  Now,  if  this  cost  may  be  bestowed  upon  the 
gourd,  which  affordeth  us  a  little  shade,  and  which  to-day 
flourisheth,  but  to-morrow  is  cut  down,  what  may  we  bestow 
— nay,  what  ought  we  not  to  bestow  upon  the  Vine,  the  fruit 
whereof  maketh  glad  the  conscience  of  man,  and  the  stem 
whereof  abideth  forever  ?  And  this  is  the  Word  of  God, 
which  we  translate." 


OiV  THE  INFEBIOEITY  OF  TRANSLATIONii,  ETC.  13 


CHAPTER  II. 

ON   THE    NECESSARY   INPERIOEITY    OF   TRANSLATIONS   TO 
THEIR   ORIGINALS. 

It  is  good  and  necessary  that  all  who  seek  accurately  to 
measure  in  a  translation  what  it  yields  and  what  it  fails  in 
yielding,  should  jji-esent  clearly  and  distinctly  to  their  own 
minds  the  fact  that  in  all  translations  there  are  losses  un- 
avoidable, as  well  as  losses  avoidable ;  that  if,  in  emptying 
the  precious  wine  from  one  vessel  to  another,  a  careless  hand 
may  cause  sometimes  that  to  be  spilt  which  might  have  been 
preserved,  there  is  a  further  spilth  which  not  the  utmost  care 
and  skill  could  have  prevented  altogether.  Avoidable  losses, 
as  has  just  been  implied,  are  those  which  more  pains,  more 
watchfulness,  a  more  complete  mastery  of  the  language  out 
of  which  the  translation  is  made,  a  more  complete  mastery 
of  that  into  which  it  is  made,  enabling  to  call  forth  all  its  la- 
tent capacities,  and,  I  will  add,  more  genius,  would  have  hin- 
dered from  occurring ;  and  it  is  for  these  alone  that  any  trans- 
lators can  be  held  responsible.  Unavoidable  are  those  in- 
herent in  the  nature  of  the  task;  in  the  relations  of  one  lan- 
guage to  another;  in  the  lack  of  accurate  correlations  and  cor- 
respondencies between  them;  in  the  very  different  schemes 
on  which  they  are  constructed ;  in  what  one  might  venture 
to  call  the  innate  stubbornness  of  the  v\r)  out  of  which  a  ncAV 
cosmos,  the  rival  of  that  already  existing,  has  to  be  evoked ; 
the  inferiority,  if  not  throughout,  yet  in  special  points,  of  the 
translators'  language — losses,  therefore,  which  no  labor,  no 
skill,  no  genius,  no  mastery  of  one  language  or  the  other,  no 
employment  of  all  helps  within  reach,  would  have  prevented. 
The  translators  may  have  done  their  part  to  the  full;  may 
have  turned^  and  not  overturned^  their  original  (Jerome  com- 


1 4         TBEXCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

plains  that  in  his  time  many  versiones  deserved  to  be  called 
eversiones  rather) ;  they  may  have  given  the  lie  to  the  Ital- 
ian in'OY evh,  ^^  Traduttori  traditori,''^  or  "  Translators  traitors" 
— men,  that  is,  who  do  not  reorder,  but  surrender,  their  au- 
thor's meaning — their  shortcomings  may  in  weight  and  num- 
ber be  as  few  as  it  is  possible  to  conceive,  nay,  let  them  be 
none  at  all,  and  yet  the  losses  of  which  I  speak  Avill  not  have 
been  therefore  excluded. 

It  is  not  250ssible  always  to  draw  the  exact  line  between 
these  losses  and  the  others.  Thus  a  passage  may  have  baf- 
fled the  skill  of  one  and  of  another  adequately  to  give  it  back 
in  a  second  tongue ;  it  may  seem  as  though  the  thing  were 
not  to  be  done  ;  when  another  may  arise,  who,  a  greater  mas- 
ter of  language,  or  in  a  more  genial  hour,  may  untie  or  cut 
the  knot  which  has  baffled  the  skill  of  all  who  went  before 
him,  may  take  the  impregnable  fortress  before  which  so  many 
others  have  sat  down  in  vain.  It  is  to  such  translators,  most 
few  in  number,  that  the  magnificent  encomium  which  Jerome 
gives  to  Hilary  and  his  renderings  from  the  Greek  belongs 
— "  quasi  captivos  sensus  in  suam  linguam  victoris  jure  trans- 
posuit"  (^p.  33).  We  can  seldom,  therefore,  absolutely  af- 
firm of  any  particular  passage  that  its  difiiculties  can  never 
be  completely  overcome,  though  of  many  that  they  have  nev- 
er yet  been  overcome.  Yet  this  must  not  prevent  us  from 
recognizing  a  large  number  of  the  shortcomings  which  at- 
tend all  translation  as  ranging  under  this  category — to  be 
regretted,  therefore,  but  not  to  be  imputed  ;  seeing  that,  if 
any  fault  is  to  be  found,  it  must  be  found  with  language  it- 
self, which,  marvelous  gift  of  God  as  it  is,  yet  working  through 
men's  limited  faculties  and  powers,  proves  often  so  imperfect 
an  implement ;  which,  capable  of  so  much,  is  yet  not  capa- 
ble of  all. 

It  needs  hai'dly  be  observed  that,  in  thus  speaking  of  the 
mountains  which  will  not  become  plains,  I  assume  through- 
out that  the  work  to  be  rendered  has  mountains ;  that  it  is 
grand  in  features,  original  in  design ;  that  the  genius  of  its 


O.Y  THE  IXFERIORITY  OF  TEANSLATIONS,  ETC.  -[  5 

author  travels  more  or  less  by  unwonted  paths,  moves  in  an 
unwonted  sphere,  advances  to  the  limits  of  human  thought, 
and  thus  stretches  to  the  utmost  the  capabilities  of  human 
si^eech.  Xo  one  will  deny  that  where  thouglit,  feeling,  pas- 
sion, imagination  are  absent,  or  are  only  slightly  present,  it 
will  be  quite  possible  to  render  from  one  language  to  anoth- 
er with  little  or  no  loss  in  the  transfer;  but  the  Agameynnon., 
the  Divina  Cominedla^  or  the  Faust — what  translator  (unless 
he  has  entered  upon  his  task  with  that  utter  unfitness  for  it 
which  prevents  him  even  from  comprehending  the  greatness 
and  the  difficulties  of  it)  has  not  been  staggered  and  amazed 
at  the  vastness,  the  variety,  the  infinite  perplexity  of  the 
problems  which  are  in  these  oflfered  for  his  solution — prob- 
lems of  which  some  will  have  to  be  evaded  rather  than  solved, 
some  to  be  solved  imperfectly,  and  some  not  to  be  solved  at 
all? 

And  if  this  be  so  with  works  of  man's  art  and  device,  how 
much  moi'e  certainly  and  how  much  more  signally  must  it  be 
the  case  where  the  book  that  is  to  be  rendered  is  sole  and 
unparalleled  of  its  kind,  reaching  to  far  higher  heights  and 
far  deeper  depths  than  any  other ;  having  words  of  God,  and 
not  of  man,  for  its  substance ;  where  the  garments  of  man's 
speech  must  be  narrower  than  the  body  of  God's  truth,  which 
yet  by  one  means  or  another  has  to  be  clothed  with  it ;  while 
the  importance  of  doing  the  best  possible  with  the  far-reach- 
ing issues  which  will  follow  on  success  or  failure  falls  in  each 
other  case  into  absolute  insignificance  as  compared  with  its 
importance  here. 

This  imperfection,  it  may  be  replied,  is  an  imperfection 
cleaving  to  all  human  languages  alike ;  the  original  language 
must  sufier  from  it  no  less  than  that  into  which  the  version 
is  to  be  made.  It  can  not  be  doubted  that  this,  to  a  certain 
point,  is  true.  No  doubt,  in  whatever  human  tongue  God 
may  please  to  make  his  will  to  be  known,  his  thoughts  will 
transcend  our  speech.  Wherever  the  sons  of  heaven  are  mar- 
ried to  the  daughters  of  earth — divine  thoughts  to  human 


1 6         TREXCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

words — the  inequality  of  the  union,  the  fact  that,  whatever 
richest  blessings  it  may  bring  with  it,  it  is  still  a  marriage 
of  disparagement,  Avill  make  itself  plainly  to  appear.  We 
shall  have  his  treasure,  if  I  may  rejDeat  the  image,  in  earthen 
vessels  still.  At  the  same  time,  one  vessel  may  be  of  far 
finer,  another  of  far  coarser  earth.  Thus,  where  a  language 
for  long  centuries  has  been  the  organ  and  vehicle  of  divine 
truth,  there  will  be  in  it  words  which  will  have  grown  and 
expanded  into  some  meetness  for  the  task  to  which  they  have 
been  put.  Long  set  apart  for  sacred  uses,  for  the  designa- 
tion of  holy  persons  or  things,  there  will  float  a  certain  sanc- 
tity round  them.  Life  and  death,  good  and  evil,  sin  and  re- 
pentance, heaven  and  hell,  with  all  the  mysteries  of  each,  will 
have  found  utterances  not  wholly  inadequate  to  them. 

But  how  different  will  it  be  in  a  language  now  for  the  first 
time  brought  into  the  service  of  divine  truth.  Here  all  will 
be  by  comj^arison  slight  and  sujierficial,  common  and  pro- 
fane. For  the  most  solemn,  the  most  sacred,  the  augustest 
mysteries  of  our  redemption,  Avords  will  have  to  be  employed 
which  have  little,  if  any  thing,  of  solemn,  or  sacred,  or  august 
about  them — words  which  have  sometimes  almost  to  be  pick- 
ed out  of  the  mire,*  in  the  hope  that  they  might  be  cleansed, 
may  little  by  little  be  filled  with  a  higher  sense,  a  holier 

*  How  often  the  missionary  translator  must  make  the  experience  which 
the  Jesuits  made  in  Japan  long  ago.  One  who  has  written  the  wonderful 
histoiy  of  their  labors  there  speaks  thus  :  "  Though  the  language  be  so  co- 
pious, still  it  wants  several  proper  words  for  expressing  the  mysteries  of  our 
religion,  which  makes  the  preachers  of  the  Gospel  very  uneasy ;  for  to  use  a 
word  witli  an  equivocal  sense  either  turns  the  discourse  into  ridicule,  or  at 
least  makes  it  unintelligible.  As,  for  example,  the  wovdi  jumogi,  a  cross,  sig- 
nifies also  a  letter  of  the  alphabet  and  the  number  ten ;  and  therefore  a  preach- 
er who  makes  use  of  this  word  to  denote  the  cross  of  Christ  our  Lord,  leaves 
his  auditory  at  a  loss  for  his  meaning.  In  like  manner,  if  he  Avould  speak  of 
a  soul,  they'll  conclude  he  means  the  devil,  the  same  word  and  character  be- 
ing common  to  both.  To  avoid,  then,  all  equivocations,  and  give  the  infidels 
a  more  lively  idea  and  higher  veneration  for  our  sacred  mysteries,  the  fathers 
of  the  society  thought  fit  to  make  use  of  the  Portuguese  words  ;  and  so  they 
caU  God  D'los,  the  soul  alma,  the  cross  cruz,  the  devil  demonio. " — History  of 
the  Church  of  Japan,  written  originally  in  French  by  Monsieur  VAhh^  de  T. 
London,  1705  ;  vol.  i.,  p.  7;  comp.  p.  73. 


ox  THE  INFERIORITY  OF  TRANSLATIONS,  ETC.  17 

meauing,  tban  an}''  which  before  their  adoption  into  this  sa- 
cred service  they  knew.  And  so  no  doubt  they  will  at  last ; 
heathen  "  Ostara"  will  become  Christian  "  Easter ;"  "  suona," 
and"sunta,"  and  "scald,"  words  touching  once  but  the  out- 
er circumference  of  life  in  the  old  German  heathendom,  will 
severally,  as  "  Siihne,"  and  "  Siinde,"  and  "  Schuld,"  touch  the 
centre  and  core  of  the  Christian  life  of  men.  "  PIriuwa," 
which  meant  so  little,  will  become  "Reue,"  which  means  so 
much ;  "  galauba,"  "  Glaube ;"  not  to  speak  of  innumerable 
other  words,  to  which  the  same  or  a  yet  more  wonderful 
transfiguration  will  arrive. 

We  have  examples  new  and  old  of  the  extreme  perplexity, 
of  which  this  which  I  have  just  mentioned  will  continually 
be  the  cause.  Thus  the  missionary  translator,  if  he  be  at  all 
aware  of  the  awful  implement  which  he  is  wielding,  of  the 
tremendous  crisis  in  a  people's  spiritual  life  which  has  arrived 
when  their  language  is  first  made  the  vehicle  of  revealed 
truths,  will  often  tremble  at  the  work  he  has  in  hand — trem- 
ble lest  he  should  be  permanently  lowering  or  confusing  the 
whole  religious  life  of  a  people  by  choosing  a  meaner  and  let- 
ting go  a  nobler  word  for  the  setting  forth  of  some  leading 
truth  of  redemption ;  and  yet  the  choice  how  difiicult,  the 
nobler  itself  falling  how  infinitely  below  his  desires,  and  be- 
low the  truth  of  which  he  would  make  it  the  bearer.  Even 
those  who  are  wholly  ignorant  of  Chinese  can  yet  perceive 
how  vast  the  spiritual  interests  which  are  at  stake  in  China ; 
how  much  will  be  won  or  how  much  lost  for  the  whole  spir- 
itual life  of  that  people,  it  may  be  for  ages  to  come,  accord- 
ing as  the  right  or  the  wrong  word  is  selected  by  the  trans- 
lators of  the  Scriptures  into  Chinese  for  expressing  the  true 
and  the  living  God.*  As  many  of  us  as  are  ignorant  of  the 
language  can  be  no  judges  in  the  controversy  which  on  this 
matter  is  being  carried  on  ;  but  we  can  all  feel  how  vital  the 
question,  how  enormous  the  interests  which  are  at  stake ;  and 
not  less,  having  heard  the  allegations  on  the  one  side  and  on 

*  See  the  Eev.  S.  C.  Malan's  Who  is  God  in  China,  Shin  or  Shang-te  ? 


1 8        TREXCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSIOX  OF  XEW  TESTAMENT. 

tlie  Other,  tliat  there  is  only  an  alternative  of  difficulties 
here. 

And  even  where  the  issues  are  not  so  vast  and  awful  as  in 
this  case,  how  much  may  turn  on  having,  or  not  having,  the 
appropriate  word.  Two,  or  it  may  he  more,  will  present 
themselves,  each  inadequate,  yet  each  with  its  own  advan- 
tages, so  that  it  shall  be  exceedingly  difficult  for  the  most 
skillful  master  of  language  to  determine  which  ought  to  be 
preferred.  Thus  it  was  not  indifferent  whether  Aoyoq  in  the 
prologue  of  St.John's  Gospel,  and  in  the  other  passages  which 
would  naturally  be  ruled  by  that  passage,  should  be  render- 
ed in  ecclesiastical  Latin  "  sermo"  or  "  verbum."  The  fact 
that  "verbum"  hais  from  the  beginning  been  the  predominant 
rendering,  and  that  "  verbum"  is  a  neuter  impersonal,  pos- 
sessing no  such  mysterious  duplicity  of  meaning  as  Aoyor, 
which  is  at  once  "  the  Word"  and  "  the  Reason,"  has,  I  do  not 
liesitate  to  affirm,  modified  the  whole  development  of  Latin 
theology  in  respect  of  the  personal  "Word  of  God."  I  do 
not,  indeed,  believe  that  the  advantages  which  in  "  verbum" 
are  foregone,  would  have  been  secured  by  the  choosing  of 
"sermo"  rather;  any  gains  from  this  would  have  been  ac- 
companied by  more  than  countervailing  losses.  I  can  not, 
therefore,  doubt  that  the  Latin  Church  did  wisely  and  well 
in  preferring  "  verbum"  to  "  sermo ;"  indeed,  it  ultimately 
quite  disallowed  the  latter;  but  still  the  doubts  and  hesita- 
tion which  existed  for  some  time  upon  this  point*  illustrate 
well  the  difficulty  of  which  I  am  speaking. 

Or  take  another  question,  not  altogether  unlike  this.  Did 
the  old  "  poenitentia,"  or  the  "  resipiscentia"  which  some  of 
the  Reformers  sought  to  introduce  in  its  room,  best  represent 
l-iiTavoia  ?  should  fiETavoe'i-E  be  rendered  "  pcsnitentiam  agite" 
or  "  resipiscite  ?"t  The  Roman  Catholics  found  great  fault 
with  Beza,  that,  instead  of  the  "  poenitentia,"  hallowed  by 

*  See  Petavius,  De  Trin.,  vi.,  1,  4. 

t  See  Fred.  Spanheim's  Dub.  Eva7iffel{ca,  pars  3*,  dub.  vii.  ;  Campbell  On 
the  Four  Gospels,  vol.  i. ,  p.  292  sqq. 


Oy  THE  lyPERIOEITT  OF  TBANSLATIOXS,  ETC.  19 

long  ecclesiastical  usage,  and  having  acquired  a  certain  pre- 
scriptive right  by  its  long  employment  in  the  Vulgate,  he,  in 
his  translation  of  Scripture,  substituted  "resipiscentia,"  Now 
Beza,  and  those  who  stood  with  him  in  this  controversy,  were 
assuredly  right  in  replying  that,  while  a  serious  displeasure 
on  the  sinner's  part  at  his  past  life  is  an  important  element  in 
all  true  ^eravoia  or  repentance,  still  "  poenitentia"  is  at  fault, 
in  that  it  brings  out  nothing  but  this,  leaves  the  changed 
mind  for  the  time  to  come,  Avhich  is  the  central  idea  of  the 
original  word,*  altogether  unexpressed  and  untouched;  that, 
moreover,  "  resipiscentia"  was  no  such  novelty,  Lactantius 
having  already  shown  the  way  in  a  rendering  with  which  now 
so  much  fault  was  found.  Taking  his  ground  strictly  on  ety- 
mology, Beza  was  perfectly  justified ;  but  it  was  also  true, 
which  he  did  not  take  account  of,  that  fie-uioia.  even  before 
it  had  been  assumed  into  scriptural  usage,f  and  much  more 
after,  had  acquired  a  superadded  sense  of  regret  for  the  past, 
or  "hadiwist"  (had-I-wist),  as  our  ancestors  called  it;  which, 
if  "poenitentia"  seemed  to  embody  too  exclusively,  his  "re- 
sipiscentia," making  at  least  as  serious  an  omission,  hardly 
embodied  at  all.  J  On  the  whole,  I  can  not  but  think  that  it 
would  have  been  better  to  leave  "  poenitentia"  undisturbed, 
while  yet  how  much  on  either  side  there  was  here  to  be 
urged. 

This,  however,  only  by  the  way.  The  painful  perplexity 
alluded  to  above,  and  felt  so  deeply  by  many  a  missionary 
translator  at  the  present  day,  did  not  touch  ours.  Thanks 
to  Gregory  the  Great,  to  the  monk  Augustine,  to  Alfred,  to 
Wicliffe,  to  Tyndale,  and  so  many  more,  English  was  a  lan- 

*  Tertullian  had  noted  this  long  before  (Adv.  Marc,  ii.,  24^) :  "In  Graeco 
sermone  poenitentia  nomen  non  ex  delicti  confessione,  sed  ex  animi  demuta- 
tione  compositum  est." 

t  Plutarch  (Pericles,  c.  10) :  'Mtvuvoia  duvt)  rovg  'AOrjralovc  ical  ttuOoq 
taxi  Tov  Kinuivoc. 

X  A  very  recent  translator  of  the  New  Testament  in  America  seeks  to  make 
good  for  the  English  what  Beza  would  have  made  good  for  the  Latin ;  and 
for  "Eepent"  everj-  where  substitutes  "Change  your  minds,"  and  for  '"re- 
pentance," "  change  of  mind !" 


20         TREXCH  OX  A  TJTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

guage  in  wliich  the  wonderful  works  of  God  had  been  pro- 
claimed so  long,  the  language  and  the  faith  had  so  grown  to- 
gether, that  those  who  in  the  latter  days  undertook  this  task 
of  translating  the  Scrij^tures  into  English  had  not  to  com- 
plain of  any  strangeness  in  the  one  to  the  truths  of  the  other, 
or  of  anj^  j^^'o^^'^g,  much  less  degrading,  associations  clinging 
to  the  words  Avhich  they  were  obliged  to  use.  Still  the 
transcendent  character  of  the  Book  to  be  rendered,  being  the 
Book  of  Him  whose  thoughts  are  not  as  our  thoughts,  must 
not  be  left  out  of  sight  when  we  seek  to  take  a  measure  of 
what  we  may  call  the  insuperable  difficulties  which  attended 
the  work  they  undertook. 

But,  setting  aside  this  the  unique  character  of  the  Bible, 
tliere  are  reasons  enough  why  the  translation  of  any  con- 
siderable book  must  always  in  many  points  halt  behind  the 
original.  These  reasons  are  plain.  In  every  language  of 
highly-cultivated  men  —  probably,  indeed,  more  than  all  in 
those  two  which  God  has  willed  shall  contain  the  authentic 
records  of  his  revelation  of  himself  to  mankind — there  will  be 
found  subtleties,  felicities,  audacities,  and  other  excellencies 
of  speech,  which  are  not  capable  of  reproduction  in  any  oth- 
er. Each  will  have  idioms  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word 
— turns  of  speech,  that  is,  proper  and  peculiar  to  itself;  and 
though  other  languages  may  have  compensations  more  or 
fewer,  which  in  like  manner  are  theirs  alone,  still  these,  not 
being  found  there  where  exactly  the  translator  wants  them, 
are  not  likely  to  assist  him  much,  or  to  redress  the  balance 
in  his  favor  again. 

One  people  will  seize  differences  and  distinctions,  and  em- 
body them  in  words,  which  another  has  not  cared,  or,  it  may 
be,  has  not  had  the  skill  or  the  good  fortune  to  make  its  own. 
Thus  the  Greek  will  often  have  two  words  where  we  have 
but  one.  Hannibal  is  "  one-eyed"  for  us,  and  a  Cyclops  or 
Arimaspian  is  "  one-eyed ;"  but  in  the  Greek  he  who  is  con- 
ceived to  have  by  nature  but  a  single  eye  is  ixov6(pQa\p.oQ ;  he 
who  has  only  one,  because  the  other  has  been  lost,  is  hepof- 


ox  THE  IXFEEIOEITY  OF  TRANSLATIONS,  ETC.  21 

daX/uos.  It  is  an  indication  of  the  Greek  in  its  decline,  Avlien 
it  ceased  any  longer  to  trouble  itself  with  these  fine  but  most 
real  distinctions,  that  the  Hellenistic  has  not  cared  to  retain 
this  distinction  (see  Matt,  xviii.,  9  ;  Mark  ix.,  47).  The  more 
subtle-thoughted  a  peoj^le  are,  the  finer  and  more  numerous 
the  differences  will  be  which  they  will  thus  have  apprehend- 
ed, and  to  which  they  will  have  given  permanence  in  words. 
For — to  remain  on  our  own  immediate  ground  of  the  New 
Testament — what,  we  may  ask,  can  an  English  translator  do 
to  express  the  distinction,  oftentimes  very  significant,  be- 
tween ayy'ip  and  ai'dpivTog? — the  honor  which  lies  often  in  the 
first  (Acts  xiii.,16;  xvii.,22),the  slight  which  is  intended  to 
be  conveyed  in  the  second  (Matt,  xxvi.,  72)  ?  At  this  point 
the  Latin,  with  "  vir"  and  "  homo,"  is  a  match  for  the  Greek, 
though  we  are  not.  In  like  manner,  the  differences,  almost 
always  instructive,  occasionally  important,  between  Upoi'  and 
I'aoe,  /jiog  and  i^wi),  aWog  and  erepog,  viog  and  Kaivog,  a\r}Q{}g  and 
akqQivog^  fiXeu)  and  ayoTraw,  jSoffcw  and  Troifxaivii),  mostly  disap- 
pear, and,  as  it  seems  to  me,  there  is  no  help  but  that  they 
must  disappear,  in  any  English  translation.  Such  facts  re- 
mind us  that  language,  divine  gift  to  man  as  it  is,  yet  work- 
ing itself  out  through  human  faculties  and  powers,  has  cleav- 
ing to  it  a  thousand  marks  of  weakness,  and  infirmity,  and 
limitation. 

To  take  an  example  of  this,  the  obliteration  of  distinctions, 
which  is  quite  unavoidable,  or  which  could  only  have  been 
avoided  at  the  cost  of  greater  losses  in  some  other  direction, 
and  to  deal  with  it  somewhat  more  in  detail — the  distinction 
between  ^ctjg,  the  invisible  underworld,  the  receptacle  of  all 
departed,  and  yieyva,  the  place  of  torment,  quite  disappears 
in  our  Version.  They  are  both  translated  "  hell,"  (lErjg  being 
so  rendered  ten  times,  and  yitwa  twelve ;  the  only  attempt 
to  give  ^ZrfQ  a  word  of  its  own  being  at  1  Cor.  xv.,  55,  where  it 
is  translated  "  grave."  The  confusion  of  which  this  is  the  oc- 
casion is  serious ;  though  how  it  could  have  been  avoided,  or 
how  it  Avould  be  possible  now  to  get  rid  of  it,  I  do  not  in  the 


22         TBEXCH  OX  A  UTH.  VERSIOX  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

least  perceive.  It  would  not  be  jDOSsible  to  render  ^'o?jc,  wher- 
ever it  occurs,  by  "  grave,"  thus  leaving  "  hell"  as  the  ren- 
dering of  yiivva  only ;  for  see  Matt,  xi,,  23  ;  xvi.,  18,  the  two 
first  places  of  its  occurrence,  where  this  plainly  would  not 
suit.  On  the  other  hand,  the  popular  sense  links  the  name 
of  "hell"  so  closely  with  the  place  of  torment,  that  it  would 
not  answer  to  keep  "  hell"  for  tJ'cTjc,  and  to  look  out  for  some 
other  rendering  of  yt'evra,  to  say  nothing  of  the  difficulty  or 
impossibility  of  finding  one ;  for  certainly  "  gehenna,"  which 
I  have  seen  proposed,  would  not  do.  The  French  have,  in- 
deed, adopted  the  word,  though  it  is  only  "  gene"  to  them ; 
and  Milton  has  once  used  it  in  poetry ;  but  it  can  not,  in  any 
sense,  be  said  to  be  an  English  word.  It  is  much  to  be  re- 
gretted that  "hades"  has  never  been  thoroughly  naturalized 
among  us.  The  language  wants  the  word,  and  in  it  the  true 
solution  of  the  difficulty  might  have  been  found,* 

Then,  too,  it  will  continually  happen  that  one  language  will 
have  words  so  elastic,  so  many-sided,  so  capable  of  being  em- 
ployed noAV  in  a  good  sense  and  now  in  a  bad,  in  irony  or 
in  earnest,  that  other  tongues  can  produce  no  equivalents  for 
these.  It  is  quite  possible  that  they  also,  though  transcend- 
ed in  some  points,  may  themselves  transcend  in  others ;  yet 
this  will  not  help  the  translator.  "  In  all  languages  what- 
ever," to  use  Bentley's  words,  "  a  word  of  a  moral  or  politic- 
al signification,  containing  several  complex  ideas  arbitrarily 
joined  together,  has  seldom  any  correspondent  word  in  any 
other  language  which  extends  to  all  these  ideas."f  But  the 
remark  is  capable  of  far  wider  application,  and  we  recognize 
here  the  source  of  one  necessary  imperfection  in  all  transla- 
tion. Looking  at  the  work  from  an  ideal  point  of  view,  it 
would  be  manifestly  desirable  to  render  constantly  one  word 

*  On 'the  "  debasing  limitation"  which  Christ's  magnificent  prerogative,  koX 
t^w  TOic,  kXhc  tov  Qavarov  Kai  tov  q.Sov  (Rev.  i.,  18),  endures,  Avhen  it  is  I'en- 
dered,  "and  have  the  keys  of  death  and  of  hell"  see  some  good  observa- 
tions in  Howe's  grand  sermon,  "  The  Redeemer's  dominion  over  the  invisible 
world."—  Works,  London,1832,  pp.  309, 310. 

t  On  Freethinking,  p.  xxx. 


ox  THE  lyPERIORITT  OF  TEAXSLATIOXS,  ETC.  23 

in  one  language  by  one  and  the  same  in  another ;  having 
given  to  each  its  equivalent,  to  adhere  to  this  throughout. 
But  the  rule,  however  theoretically  good,  is  discovered,  when 
the  application  of  it  is  attempted,  to  be  one  which  it  is  whol- 
ly impossible  to  carry  out.  If  this  has  ever  been  proposed 
as  an  inflexible  law,  it  must  have  been  on  the  assumption 
that  words  in  one  language  cover  exactly  the  same  spaces 
of  meaning  which  other  words  do  in  another ;  that  they  have 
exactly  the  same  many-sidedness,  the  same  elasticity,  the 
same  power  of  being  applied  for  good  or  for  evil,  for  honor 
or  for  shame.  But  nothing  is  farther  from  the  case.  Words 
are  inclosures  from  the  great  outfield  of  meanings ;  but  difler- 
ent  languages  have  inclosed  on  different  schemes,  as  chance, 
or  design,  or  the  deeper  instincts  unconsciously  at  work  in 
men's  minds  have  determined ;  and  wor^s  in  different  lan- 
guages which  are  precisely  co-extensive  and  commensurate 
M'ith  one  another,  are  much  rarer  than  we  incuriously  assume. 
It  is  easy  to  illustrate  this,  the  superior  elasticity  of  a  word 
in  one  language  to  that  of  one  which  is  in  part  its  equivalent 
in  another.  Thus  we  have  no  word  in  English  which  at  once 
means  heavenly  messengers  and  earthly,  with  only  the  con- 
text to  determine  which  of  the  two  is  intended.  There  was 
no  choice,  therefore,  but  to  render  ayyeXot  by  "  messengers" 
at  Luke  vii.,  24 ;  ix.,  52 ;  Jam.  ii.,  25,  however  it  might  be 
translated  "angels"  in  each  other  passage  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment where  it  occurs.  Again,  no  word  in  English  has  the 
power  which  /layoc  has  in  Greek,  of  being  used  at  will  in  an 
honorable  sense  or  a  dishonorable.  There  was  no  help,  there- 
fore, but  to  render  iiayoi  by  "  wise  men,"*  or  some  such  hon- 
orable designation.  Matt,  ii.,  1,  and  ^ayoq  by  "  sorcerer,"  Acts 
xiii.,  6.  Thus,  again,  it  would  have  been  difficult  to  repre- 
sent YlapaK\r]roQ,  applied  now  to  the  third  Person  of  the  Holy 

*  Milton,  indeed,  speaks  of  these  wise  men  as  the  "  star-led  wizards"  and 
•  wizard"  is  the  word  which  Sir  John  Cheke  employs  in  his  translation  of  St. 
Matthew ;  but  the  word  is  scarcely  honorable  enough  for  the  /layoi  of  this 
place,  nor  opprobrious  enough  for  the  fidyos  of  the  Acts. 


24         TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Trinity  (John  xiv.,  16,  26),  and  now  to  the  second  (1  John  i., 
21),  by  any  single  word.  "  Paraclete"  would  alone  have  been 
possible ;  and  such  uniformity  of  rendering,  if  indeed  it  could 
be  called  rendei'ing  at  all,  would  have  been  dearly  purchased 
by  the  loss  of  "  Comforter"  and  "Advocate" — both  of  them 
Latin  words,  it  is  true,  but  much  nearer  to  the  heart  and  un- 
derstanding of  Englishmen  than  the  Greek  "  Paraclete"  could 
ever  have  become.*  To  have  rendered  caifxovia  "  devils,"  and 
not  "gods,"  at  Acts  xvii.,  18,  because  it  has  been  elsewhere 
so  rendered,  as  Tyndale  and  Cranmer  have  done,  would  have 
been  a  confusing  mistake.  In  the  mouth  of  heathen  men, 
such  as  the  Athenians  who  are  speaking  here,  the  word  meant 
something  quite  different  from  what  it  meant  elsewhere  in 
the  mouth  of  Jews,  and  demands  to  be  differently  rendered. 
So,  too,  it  would  have  been  unadvisable  to  render  cujoie,  as 
the  compellation  of  one  person  by  another,  always  "  Sir,"  or 
always  "  Lord."  The  word  has  a  wider  range  than  either  of 
these  two ;  it  is  only  the  two  together  which  cover  an  equal 
extent.  "  Sir"  in  many  cases  would  not  be  respectful  enough ; 
"Lord"  in  some  would  be  too  respectful  (John  xx.,  15).  Our 
translators  have  prudently  employed  both,  and  in  most  cases 
have  shown  a  fine  tact  in  their  selection  of  one  or  the  other. 
One's  only  doubt  is  whether,  in  the  conversation  of  our  Lord 
with  the  Samaritan  woman  (John  iv.),  they  should  not  have 
changed  the  "Sir,"  which  is  perfectly  in  its  place  at  ver.  11, 
where  she  is  barely  respectful  to  her  unknown  interrogator, 
into  "Lord"  at  ver.  15,  or,  if  not  there,  yet  certainly  at  ver. 
19.  The  Rheims  version  beginning,  as  we  do,  with  "  Sir,"  al- 
ready has  exchanged  this  for  "  Lord"  at  ver.  15,  and  thus  del- 
icately indicates  the  growing  reverence  of  the  woman  for  the 
mysterious  stranger  whom  she  has  met  beside  Jacob's  well. 

*  "We  should  not  forget,  in  measuring  the  fitness  of  "Comforter,"  that  the 
fundamental  idea  of  "  Comforter,"  according  to  its  etymology  and  its  early 
use,  is  that  of  " Strengthener,"  and  not  "Consoler,"  even  as  the  irapuK\r)TOQ 
is  one  who,  being  summoned  to  the  side  of  the  accused  or  imperiled  man  {ad- 
vocatus),  stands  by  to  aid  and  encourage.  See  the  instructive  note  in  Arch- 
deacon Hai'e's  il/ission  of  the  Comforter,  p.  521-527. 


Oy  THE  IXFERIORITY  OF  TRAXSLATIOXS,  ETC.  25 

Or,  asrain,  a  lanofuasre  will  have  words  resting  on  and  em- 
bodying  some  picturesque  image,  which,  so  far  as  they  do 
this,  have  no  counterparts  elsewhere.  If  we  met  the  Spanish 
"pavonear"  or  the  French  "pavaner,"  we  might  render  these 
by  the  English  "to  strut;"  there  would,  indeed,  be  hardly  any 
choice  but  to  do  so ;  but  where  is  the  peacock  (pavon)  here  ? 
the  strutting  as  the  peacock  does,  which  underlies  and  looks 
through  the  word  which  we  thus  inadequately  render  ?  "We 
might  render  "  fourmiller"  "  to  swarm  ;"  we  could  scarcely 
do  otherwise ;  but  where  is  the  swarming  as  the  ants  do,  the 
"  formieulare,"  if  one  might  so  say,  of  the  French  original  ? 
So,  too,  our  translators  may  say,  '■'■Be  clothed  with  humility" 
(1  Pet.  v.,  5) ;  and  fitly ;  for  no  word  in  English  would  ex- 
press all  which  lyKo/jLljwaaade  does  in  Greek,  namely, "  Fasten 
humility  upon  you  as  a  garment  ichich  is  tied  icith  knots — 
not,  therefore,  to  be  lightly  removed  from  you  again."  Still 
there  is  loss  here. 

Once  more,  one  language  will  have  words  which  utter  in 
their  own  brief  compass  what  it  takes  two  or  three,  or,  it  may 
be,  half  a  dozen  words  in  another  language  to  utter.  The 
Xew  Testament  furnishes  many  such,  as  the  evTrepicrrarog  of 
Ileb.  xii.,  1,  not  expressible,  or,  at  least,  not  expressed  by  us 
in  less  than  six  words,  "  which  doth  so  easily  beset  us ;" 
as  the  aXKorpioemaKOTTOQ  of  1  Pet.  iv.,  15,  which  costs  us  only 
one  word  less — "  busy-body  in  other  men's  mattei-s" — to  ren- 
der. I  do  not  venture  to  affirm  that  in  these  particular  cases 
such  long  circumlocutions  were  absolutely  inevitable.  One 
of  the  old  Latin  versions,  which  renders  evTreplara-oQ  cifiapria, 
"  a{/ile  peccatum,"  has  at  any  rate,  so  far  as  the  Latin  goes, 
avoided  this  in  the  first  instance;  and  then  there  is  "med- 
dler" (though  I  am  not  prepared  to  recommend  it),  which 
would  have  done  the  same  in  the  second.  Still,  even  if  these 
instances  were  in  one  way  or  another  got  rid  of  from  our 
Version,  shown  to  be  needless  circumlocutions,  it  would  not 
the  less  remain  certain  that  any  language,  rich  in  expressive 
words,  will  frequently  offer  those  which  will  need  two,  three. 


26         TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

or,  it  may  be,  more,  adequately  to  express  in  some  other, 
though  that  other,  it  may  be,  elsewhere  is  as  rich,  or  richer 
in  the  same  kind.  For  example,  when  Montaigne  says  that 
Avomen  have  "  I'esprit  2^rhnesautier,''''  that  they  i-each  a  right 
conclusion,  if  they  reach  it  at  all,  at  the  first  hound,  what  could 
we  do  in  English  with  this  "  primesautier  ?"  and  this  impos- 
sibility of  always  matching  one  word  by  one  must  be  accept- 
ed as  another  necessary  imperfection  in  this  work. 

One  language  will  give  scope  and  opportunity  for  preg- 
nant plays  upon  words,  such  as  St.  Paul  delights  in,  for  which 
others  afford  no  answering  opportunity;  for  it  is  only  by  a 
rare  good  fortune  that  the  paronomasia  of  one  language,  can 
be  represented  by  that  of  another.  I  refer  to  such  as  the  yi- 
vwaKOjiivT]  and  avayivurTKO^ivT]  of  2  Cor.  iii.,  2  ;  the  epya^ofiiyovg 
and  Ttf pupya'CoyiirovQ  of  2  Thess.  iii.,  11;  and  probably  the 
ilxaQe  and  iiraBe  (7ra0>//iara,  /ua6>//uara)  of  Heb.  V.,  8.  The  loss, 
to  be  sure,  on  these  occasions  is  not  very  serious;  yet  this 
can  not  always  be  said.  It  can  not,  for  instance,  at  Ejjhes. 
iii.,  14, 15  :  "  For  this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the  Father 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  the  v;\\o\q  family  in  heav- 
en and  earth  is  named."  How  profound  a  significance  the 
■words  of  the  apostle  have,  which  we  only  imperfectly  repro- 
duce, and  this  because  the  word  "  family"  does  not  stand  in 
etymological  relation  with  "  father,"  as  Ttarpia  does  with  tto- 
Ti]p ;  while  no  other  word  can  be  proposed  in  its  stead  capa- 
ble of  presenting  in  English  the  sublime  play  on  words  which 
exists  in  the  Greek.  To  God  the  name  "  Father"  by  highest 
right  competes,  and  "every  family"  which  subsists  upon 
earth  subsists  as  such  by  right  of  its  relation  to  him,  and  wit- 
nesses for  this  in  the  fact  that  the  word  Trarpm  (here  our  En- 
glish breaks  down)  involves,  and,  indeed,  is  only  the  unfold- 
ing of,  the  word  iza-np.  If  narpia  were  abstract,  which  some 
have  attempted  to  prove,  but  quite  failed  in  so  doing,  we 
^might  venture  on  "  fatherhood"  instead  of  "  family,"  which, 
indeed,  w^ould  only  be  a  going  back  to  Wicliffe's  translation. 
He,  finding  "paternitas"  in  the  Vulgate — I  do  not  know  how 


Oy  THE  INFERIORITY  OF  TRAXSLATIOXS,  ETC.  27 

this  came  there,  ^yhether  from  a  partial  misunderstanding  of 
Trarpta,  or  from  a  praiseworthy  determination  to  reproduce  at 
all  costs  by  aid  of  "  pater"  and  "  paternitas"  the  Greek  j5«ro- 
nomasia  —  very  fitly  rendered  it  by  "fatherhood."  Harptu, 
however,  is  not  thus  abstract,  but  concrete ;  and  being  so, 
help  is  not  here  to  be  found ;  nor,  I  believe,  any  where,  ex- 
cej^t  in  that  living  interpretation,  that  ministry  of  the  Word, 
Avhich  should  set  before  it  as  a  constant  aim  to  redress  what- 
ever wrongs  the  readers  of  the  Scripture  not  in  its  original 
tongues  may  be  in  danger  of  suifering. 

Again,  our  translators  say, "  Now  I  know  in  j)art,  but  then 
shall  I  know  even  as  also  I  am  knoion''''  (1  Cor.  xiii.,  12) ;  and 
we  acquiesce  in  this,  but  reluctantly ;  for  who  can  be  quite 
content  here  to  lose  the  very  remarkable  change  from  the 
simple  yivw(TK())  to  the  composite  and  intenser  £7rtyj/a»(ro/ia<,by 
which  the  apostle  expresses  how  much  deeper,  fuller,  richer 
Avill  be  the  knowledge  of  the  world  to  come? — w'e  acquiesce 
in  it,  because  we  have  no  verb  connected  Avith  "  to  know^" 
which  expresses  this  higher,  more  intimate  knowledge  and 
insight.  "  Nosco"  and  "  pernoscam"  would  do  it  in  the  Lat- 
in ;  nothing  that  I  see  but  "know"  and  "perfectly  know"  in 
the  English.  Commenting  on  these  Avords — and  it  is  only  by 
commentary,  not  by  translation,  that  their  force  can  in  En- 
glish be  brought  out — one  of  our  divines  has  well  said,"'E7r/- 
yviiJffiQ  and  yvu)tnQ  differ.  'ETr/yrwcrtc  is  »/  ^frct  t)}V  7rpujTr}v  tov 
-rpayfxaTog  yvwaiv  TravreXijg  Kara  cvvafxiv  KUTayurjarig.  It  is  bring- 
ing me  better  acquainted  Avith  a  thing  that  I  knew  before,  a 
more  exact  vicAving  of  an  object  that  I  saw  before  afar  off. 
That  little  portion  of  knowledge  which  we  had  here  shall  be 
much  improved;  ^ur  eye  shall  be  raised  to  see  the  same 
things  more  strongly  and  clearly."* 

Then,  too,  A\'hat  one  may  call  the  audacities  of  a  language, 

new  and  daring  combinations  of  Avords,  images  so  bold  that 

no  one  ventures  to  reproduce  them  in  another  language — 

such  as,  keeping  clear  of,  do  yet  approach  so  close  to  the 

*  Culverwell,  Spiritual  Opticks,  p.  180. 

s 


28  ,      TRENCH  OX  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

verge  of  extravagance,  that  tolerable,  even  sublime,  in  one 
language,  they  would  be  intolerable,  perhaps  ridiculous,  in 
another — these  will  add  to  the  perplexities  of  a  translator. 
The  New  Testament  does  not,  indeed,  offer  any  large  num- 
ber of  these  ;  but  the  Old  how  many.  In  JEschylus  they 
must  well-nigh  drive  a  translator  to  despair.  But  even  in 
our  version  of  the  New  a  more  vigorous  image  has  been 
sometimes  changed  under  a  real  or  presumed  necessity  for  a 
weaker,  or,  it  may  be,  the  imaginative  word  let  go  altogether, 
and  replaced  by  one  strictly  literal.  Thus  we  have  shrunk 
from  "the  li})  of  the  sea"  (Heb.  xi.,12),  "the  mouths  of  the 
sword"  (Heb.  xi.,  34),  and  might  with  still  better  reason  have 
done  so  from  "  the  calves  of  the  lips"  (Hos.  xiv.,  2).  One  is, 
indeed,  disposed  to  think  that  in  this  matter  we  have  some- 
times run  before  the  need,  and  let  go  a  strength  that  might 
have  been  perfectly  well  retained.  Thus,  why  should  o-x'^O" 
fiivove  (Mark  i.,  10)  be  "  opened,"  and  not  rather  "  rent,"  which 
is  only  suggested  in  the  margin  ("  cleft"  in  the  Geneva)  ? 
Or  why  should  (iaaavi'Co^trov  (Matt,  xiv.,  24)  be  merely  "  toss- 
ed" (a  very  little  sea  will  "  toss"  a  boat),  and  not  rather  "  tor- 
mented," or  some  such  word  ?  Wicliffe  has  the  vigorous  old 
word  "  shogged ;"  De  Wette,  "  geplagt."  Compare  Mark 
vi.,  48. 

Other  finer  and  more  delicate  turns  of  language  must  be 
suffered  to  escape.  Thus  our  translators  make  St.  Luke  to 
say  that  "  all  the  Athenians  and  strangers  spent  their  time* 
in  nothing  else  but  either  to  tell  or  to  hear  some  new  thing''' 
(Acts  xvii.,  21) ;  for,  indeed,  how  could  they  express  that  ex- 
quisite TL  KaivuTspov  of  the  sacred  historian  ?  not  "  some  new 
thing"  only,  but  "  something  viewer  than  the  lasC — the  new 
so  soon  growing  old  and  stale  that  a  viewer  was  ever  needed 
to  tickle  their  languid  and  jaded  curiosity.f 

*  Better,  I  think, "  spent  their  leisure"  (evKaipovv :  "  vacahant"  in  the  Vul- 
gate) ;  the  word  implying  further  that  all  their  time  was  leisure,  that  "  vaca- 
tion," to  use  Fuller's  pun,  "was  their  whole  vocation." 

t  Bengel :  '■'■Nova  statim  sordebant;  novlora  quaerebantur." 


ON  THE  INFERIORITY  OF  TRANSLATIONS,  ETC.  29 

And,  lastly,  it  may  be  observed  that  what  is  perfectly  clear 
in  one  language,  through  the  wealth  of  inflections  and  other 
grammatical  helps  which  it  has,  will  lie  open  to  misapprehen- 
sion and  misunderstanding  in  another,  which  has  either  now 
renounced,  or  has  never  been  a  possessor  of,  these.  What 
English  reader  of  2  Pet.  iii.,  16,  coming  to  the  woi-ds  "«??  ev^ 
which  are  some  things  hard  to  be  understood,"  does  not  refer 
"in  which"  to  the  "epistles"  of  St.  Paul,  mentioned  in  the 
verse  preceding,  and  see  in  these  words  a  general  statement 
of  the  hardness  and  obscurity  of  those  writings?  but  no  read- 
er of  the  Greek  could  do  this,  or  help  seeing  at  once  that  "  in  ^  ''C 
which"  referred  to  "  these  things"  immediately  going  before, 
the  things,  namely,  which  St.  Paul  had  spoken  in  his  epistles 
concerning  the  long-suffering  God,  which  things  the  unstable, 
as  St.  Peter  declares,  might  easily  wrest  to  their  harm.  If 
our  Lord  declares  that  the  woman  who  has  found  her  lost 
piece  of  silver  "  calleth  \ieY  friends  and  her  neighbors  togeth- 
er" (Luke  XV.,  9),  the  Greek  says  that  it  is  her  female  friends 
and  neighbors ;  the  English  says — and,  as  English  now  is,* 
it  can  say — nothing  of  the  kind.  At  Luke  xviii.,16,  one  read- 
ing in  the  English  might  be  in  doubt  to  whom  the  earlier 
"  them"  referred,  to  the  "  disciples"  or  "  the  little  children ;" 
no  doubt  is  possible  in  the  Greek.  There  are,  I  dare  say, 
some  hundreds  of  such  passages  in  the  New  Testament. 

One  word  I  will  add,  in  conclusion,  in  regard  of  such  inev- 
itable losses  as  these,  and  those  others  which  must  also  be 
considered  as  inevitable,  in  that,  whatever  men  do,  they  will 
do  it  with  a  certain  imperfection.  We  may  say,  looking  at 
the  matter  from  one  point  of  view,  that  no  book  suffers  so 
much  from  the  accruing  of  these  as  the  Bible ;  while,  looking 
at  it  from  another,  none  suffers  so  little.  Both  which  asser- 
tions may  be  illustrated  thus  :  It  were  a  matter  of  more  re- 
srret  if  a  srain  or  two  were  rubbed  off  from  a  solid  mass  of 

*  I  make  this  restriction ;  for  if  we  had  preserved  "  friendess"  and  "  neigh- 
bouress, "  both  employed  by  Wicliflfe,  though  not  in  this  place,  our  English 
might  have  said  all  which  the  Greek  says. 


30         TREXCH  OX  A  UTK  VEESIOX  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

gold  in  its  transmission  from  hand  to  hand  (for  the  loss  would 
be  greater),  than  if  the  same  injury  had  befallen  some  lump 
of  meaner  ore  ;  while  yet,  at  the  same  time,  no  other  could 
at  all  so  well  afford  this  detriment,  which  would  not  affect  its 
value  in  any  appreciable  degree.  It  is  even  so  with  Holy 
Scripture.  Its  preciousness  is  such  that  any,  the  slightest, 
wrong  which  may  befall  it  can  not  but  be  dearly  grudged ; 
every  precaution  must  needs  be  taken  to  avert  such  wrongs, 
or  to  reduce  them  to  a  minimum ^  while  yet  the  bulk  and 
parcel  of  truth  which  is  there  is  so  vast,  so  far  exceeding  all 
measures  of  value  which  we  know,  that  tlie  very  slight  harm 
and  loss  which  may  thus  come  to  pass  leaves  it  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  the  same  treasure,  transcending  all  price,  whicli 
before  it  was. 


OJSr  THE  EifOLISII  OF  OUR  VEESIOX. 


31 


CHAPTER  HI. 

ox   THE    ENGLISH    OF   THE   AUTHOEIZED   VERSION. 

There  is  a  question,  namely,  What  is  the  worth  of  the  En- 
glish in  which  our  translation  is  composed  ?  which  manifest- 
ly may  be  considered  apart  from  another  question,  How  far 
does  this  translation  adequately  represent  its  original  ?  and 
there  are  some  advantages  in  keeping  the  two  considerations 
separate.  The  English  of  our  version,  which  I  propose  in 
this  way  to  consider  apart,  has  been  very  often,  and  very 
justly,  the  subject  of  highest  praise,  or,  indeed,  the  occasion 
of  thankful  gratulation  to  the  Giver  of  every  good  gift,  who 
has  given  such  an  excellent  gift  to  us;  and  if  I  do  not  reiter- 
ate in  words  of  my  own  or  of  others  these  praises  and  grat- 
ulations,  it  is  only  because  they  have  been  uttered  so  often 
and  so  fully  that  it  has  become  a  sort  of  commonplace  to  re- 
peat them.  One  fears  to  encounter  the  rebuke  which  befell 
the  rhetorician  of  old,  who,  having  made  a  long  and  elabo- 
rate oration  in  praise  of  the  strength  of  Hercules,  was  asked. 
Who  has  denied  it?  at  the  close.  Omitting,  then,  to  praise 
in  general  terms  what  all  must  praise,  it  may  yet  be  worth 
while  to  ask  ourselves  in  what  those  singular  merits  of  dic- 
tion, which  by  the  confession  of  all  it  possesses,  mainly  con- 
sist; nor  shall  I  shrink  from  pointing  out  what  appear  to  me 
its  occasional  weaknesses  and  blemishes,  the  spots  upon  the 
sun's  disk,  which  impair  its  perfect  beauty. 

When,  then,  we  seek  to  measure  the  value  of  any  style, 
there  are  two  points  which  claim  our  attention ;  first,  the 
words  themselves ;  and  then,  secondly,  the  words  in  their  re- 
lations to  one  another,  and  as  modified  by  these  relations — 
in  brief,  the  dictionary  and  the  grammar.  These  I  propose 
to  consider  in  their  order ;  and,  first,  the  dictionary  of  our 


32         TBENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

English  Version.  Now  of  this  I  will  not  hesitate  in  express- 
ing my  conviction  that  it  is  superior  to  the  grammar.  The 
first  seems  to  me  nearly  as  perfect  as  possible ;  there  are 
more  frequent  flaws  and  faults  in  the  second.  In  respect  of 
words,  Ave  every  where  recognize  in  it  that  true  delectus  ver- 
borum  on  which  Cicero*  insists  so  earnestly,  and  in  which  so 
much  of  the  charm  of  style  consists.  All  the  words  used  are 
of  the  noblest  stamp,  alike  removed  from  vulgarity  and  ped- 
antry ;  they  are  neither  too  familiar,  nor,  on  the  other  side, 
not  familiar  enough;  they  never  crawl  on  the  ground,  as  lit- 
tle are  they  stilted  and  far-fetched.  And  then  how  happily 
mixed  and  tempered  are  the  Anglo-Saxon  and  Latin  vocables. 
No  undue  preponderance  of  the  latter  makes  the  language 
remote  from  the  understanding  of  simple  and  unlearned  men. 
Thus  Ave  do  not  find  in  our  version,  as  in  the  Rheims,  whose 
authors  might  seem  to  have  put  off  their  loyalty  to  the  En- 
glish language  Avith  their  loyalty  to  the  English  crown, "  od- 
ible"  (Rom.  i.,  30),  nor  "impudicity"  (Gal.  v.,  19),  nor  "lon- 
ganimity" (2  Tim.  iii.,  10),  nor  "  coinquinations"  (2  Peter  ii,, 
13,20),  nor  "  comessations"  (Gal.  v.,  21),  nor  "  postulations" 
(1  Tim.  ii.,  1),  nor  "exinanite"  (Phil,  ii.,  7),  nor  "  contristate" 
(Eph.  iv.,  30),  nor  "  zealatours"  (Acts  xxi.,  20),  nor  "  agnition" 
(Philem.  6),  nor  "suasible"  (Jam.  iii.,  IV),  nor  "  domesticals" 
(1  Tim.  v.,  8),  nor  "  repropitiate"  (Heb.  ii.,  l'7).f  Our  trans- 
latoi's,  indeed,  set  very  distinctly  before  themselves  the  avoid- 

*Z>e  Orat., m.,S7. 

t  Where  the  word  itself  which  the  Bheims  translators  employ  is  a  perfect- 
ly good  one,  it  is  yet  curious  and  instructive  to  obsen'e  how  often  they  have 
drawn  on  the  Latin  portion  of  the  language,  where  we  have  drawn  on  the 
Saxon;  thus  they  use  "corporal"  where  we  have  "bodily"  (I  Tim.  iv.,  8), 
"coadjutor"  where  we  have  " fellow-worker"  (Col.  iv.,  11;"  work-fellow"  in 
the  old  versions  was  better  still),  "incredulity"  where  we  have  "unbelief" 
(Heb.  iii.,  19,  and  often),  "  donary"  where  we  have  "gift"  (Luke  xxi.,  5), 
"  superedified"  where  we  have  "built  up"  (1  Pet.  ii.,  5),  "precursor"  where 
we  have  "forerunner"  (Heb.  vi.,  20),  "dominator"  where  we  have  "Lord" 
(Jude  4),  "cogitation"  where  we  have  "thought"  (Luke  ix.,  46),  "fraterni- 
ty" where  we  have  "brotherhood"  (1  Pet.  ii.,  17);  or  they  have  the  more 
Latin  word  where  we  the  less,  as  "obsecrations"  where  we  have  "prayers" 
(Luke  v.,  33). 


ON  TEE  ENGLISH  OF  OUR  VERSION.  33 

iug  of  "  inkhorn"  terms.  Speaking  of  their  own  version,  and 
comparing  it  with  the  Rhemish,  published  some  thirty  years 
before,  they  say, "  We  have  shunned  the  obscurity  of  the  Pa- 
pists in  the  '  Azims,'  'tunicke,'  'rational!,'  'holocausts,'  'pre- 
puce,' '  pasche'  [they  might  have  added  '  scenopegia,'  John 
vii.,  2],  and  a  number  of  such  like,  whereof  their  late  transla- 
tion is  full,  and  that  of  purpose  to  darken  the  sense."  It  is 
not  a  little  curious  that  three  of  the  words  thus  found  fault 
with,  namely,  "  tunic,"  "rational,"  and  "  holocaust,"  have  be- 
come thoroughly  naturalized  in  the  language. 

And  yet,  while  it  is  thus  with  the  authors  of  our  Version, 
there  is  no  extravagant  attempt  on  the  other  side  to  put  un- 
der ban  words  of  Latin  or  Greek  derivation,  where  there  are 
not,  as.  very  often  there  could  not  be,  sufficient  equivalents 
for  them  in  the  homelier  portion  of  our  language.  Indeed, 
they  now  and  then  employ  those  Latin  where  these  were 
close  to  their  hand :  witness  "  celestial"  and  "  terrestrial"  (l 
Cor.  XV.,  40),  where  it  was  free  to  them  to  employ  "heaven- 
ly" and  "  earthly ;"  "  omnipotent,"  of  which  they  make  such 
sublime  employment  at  Rev.  xix.,  6,  where  "  almighty"  would 
have  equally  served  their  turn,  and  would  have  been  em- 
ployed if  their  first  thought  had  been  always  to  find  an  An- 
glo-Saxon word.  But  there  is  no  affectation  upon  their  part 
of  excluding  those  other,  which  in  their  measure  and  degree 
have  as  good  a  right  to  admission  as  the  most  Saxon  vocable 
of  them  all;  no  attempt,  like  that  of  Sir  John  Cheke,  who  in 
his  version  of  St.  Matthew — in  many  respects  a  valuable  mon- 
ument of  English — substituted  "  hundreder"  for  "  centurion," 
"  freshman"  for  "  proselyte,"  "  gainbirth" — i.  c, "  againbirth" 
for  "  regeneration,"  with  much  else  of  the  same  kind.  The 
fault,  it  must  be  owned,  was  in  the  right  extreme,  but  was  a 
fault  and  affectation  no  less.  In  regard  of  the  rendering  of 
one  very  notable  word,  I  mean  dyaTr??,  they  have  gone  back, 
as  is  well  known,  in  a  large  number  of  passages  (the  most 
remarkable  is  1  Cor.  xiii.),  from  the  rendering  of  the  eai'lier 
Anglican  versions,  and  for  the  Saxon  "  love"  substituted  the 


34         TBENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSIOX  OF  NEW  TESTA3IENT. 

Latin  "  charity,"  and  this,  which  is  the  more  Avortliy  of  note, 
in  the  face  of  Tynclalc's  strong  protest  against  any  such  ren- 
dering.* 

One  of  the  most  effectual  means  by  Avliich  our  translators 
have  attained  their  rare  felicity  in  diction,  while  it  must  di- 
rtiinish  to  a  certain  extent  their  claims  to  absolute  originali- 
ty, enhances  in  a  far  higher  degree  their  good  sense,  moder- 
ation, and  wisdom;  justifies  the  character  which  in  a  certain 
proud  humility  they  claim  to  themselves,  as  "  men  greater  in 
other  men's  eyes  than  in  their  own,  and  that  sought  the  truth 
rather  than  their  own  praise."  I  allude  to  the  extent  to 
which  they  have  availed  themselves  of  the  work  of  those  who 
Avent  before  tliem,  and  incorporated  this  work  into  their  own, 
every  Avhere  building,  if  possible,  on  the  old  foundations,  and 
displacing  nothing  for  the  mere  sake  of  change.  On  this 
jjoint  Ave  may  fitly  quote  their  OAvn  Avords,  as  best  revealing 
to  us  the  aspect  under  Avhicli  tlicy  contemplated  the  work 
which  they  had  in  hand :  "  Truly,  good  Christian  reader,  Ave 
never  thought  from  the  beginning  that  Ave  should  need  to 
make  a  ncAv  translation,  nor  yet  to  make  of  a  bad  one  a  good 
one;  ....  but  to  make  a  good  one  a  better,  or  out  of  many 
good  ones  one  principal  good  one,  not  justly  to  be  excepted 
against — that  hath  been  our  endeavor,  tliat  our  mark." 

It  has  thus  come  to  pass  that  our  Version,  like  a  costly  mo- 
saic, besides  having  its  own  felicities,  is  the  inlieritor  of  the 
successes  in  language  of  all  the  translations  Avhich  w^ent  be- 
fore. Tyndale's  was  singularly  rich  in  these,  Avhich  is  the 
more  remarkable,  as  his  other  writings  do  not  surj^ass  in 
beauty  or  charm  of  language  the  average  merit  of  his  con- 
temporaries ;  and  though  much  of  his  Avork  has  been  removed 
in  the  successive  revisions  Avhich  our  Bible  has  undergone, 
very  much  of  it  still  remains :  the  alterations  are  for  the 
most  part  verbal,  Avhile  the  forms  and  moulds  into  which  he 
cast  the  sentences  have  been  to  a  wonderful  extent  retained 
by  all  who  succeeded  him.     And  not  merely  these,  and  the 

*  See  his  Answer  unto  Sir  Thomas  More's  Dialogue — Works,  1573,  p.  253. 


Oy  THE  EXGLISH  OF  OUE  YERSIOX.  35 

rhythm  which  is  dependent  upon  these,  are  his,  but  even  of 
his  \ii,iQ  very  much  survives.  To  him  we  owe  such  phrases 
as  "  turned  to  flight  the  armies  of  the  aliens,"*  "  the  author 
and  finisher  of  our  faith ;"  to  him,  generally,  we  owe  more 
than  to  any  single  laborer  in  this  field — as,  indeed,  may  be 
explained  partly,  though  not  wholly,  from  the  fact  that  he 
was  the  first  to  thrust  in  his  sickle  into  this  harvest.  So 
willing  were  King  James's  translators  to  profit  by  all  who 
went  before  them,  that  they  did  not  decline  to  use  what  good 
the  Khemish  Version  occasionally,  though  rarely,  offered. 
Thus  the  felicitous  phrase,  "the  ministry  of  reconciliation" 
(2  Cor.  v.,  18),  first  appears  in  it;  and  the  singularly  happy 
rendering  of  iSijjrjXoQ  by  "profane  person"  (Heb.  xii.,  16); 
and  were  probably  derived  from  it  into  our  Version.  Still, 
while  they  were  thus  indebted  to  those  who  went  before 
them  in  the  same  sacred  office,  to  Tyndale  above  all,  for  in- 
numerable turns  of  successful  translation,  which  they  have 
not  failed  to  adopt  and  to  make  their  own,  it  must  not  be 
supposed  that  very  many  of  these  were  not  of  their  own  in- 
troduction. A  multitude  of  phrases  which,  even  more  than 
the  rest  of  Scripture,  have  become,  on  account  of  their  beau- 
ty and  fitness, "  household  words"  and  fixed  utterances  of  the 
religious  life  of  the  English  people,  we  owe  to  them,  and  they 
first  appear  in  the  Version  of  161 1 ;  such,  for  instance,  as  "the 
Captain  of  our  salvation"  (Heb.  ii.,  10),"  the  sin  which  doth 
so  easily  beset  us"  (Heb.  xii.,  1),"  the  Prince  of  life"  (Acts 
iii.,  15). 

But  in  leaving,  as  I  now  propose  to  do,  these  generals,  and 
entering  on  particulars,  it  is  needful  to  make  one  preliminary 
observation.  He  who  passes  judgment  on  the  English  of  our 
version — he,  above  all,  who  finds  fault  with  it,  should  be  fair- 
ly acquainted  with  the  English  of  that  age  in  which  this  Ver- 
sion appeared.  Else  he  may  be  very  unjust  to  that  which 
he  is  judging,  and  charge  it  with  inexactness  of  rendering, 

*  It  may  be  said  that  this  is  ob^^ous :  yet  not  so.  The  Rheims  does  not 
get  nearer  to  it  than  "  tui-ned  away  the  camp  of  foreigners." 


36         TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

where,  indeed,  it  was  perfectly  exact  according  to  the  En- 
glish of  the  time,  and  has  only  ceased  to  be  so  now  through 
subsequent  changes  or  modifications  in  the  meaning  of  words. 
Few,  I  am  persuaded,  who  have  studied  our  translation,  and 
tried  how  far  it  will  bear  a  strict  comparison  with  the  origi- 
nal which  it  undertakes  to  represent,  but  have  at  times  been 
tempted  to  make  hasty  judgments  here,  and  to  pass  sen- 
tences of  condemnation,  which  they  have  afterward,  on  bet- 
ter knowledge,  seen  reason  to  recall,  and  to  confess  their  own 
presumption  in  making.  Certainly,  for  myself,  in  many  places 
where  I  once  thought  our  translators  had  been  wanting  in 
I  precision  of  rendering,  I  now  perceive  that,  according  to  the 
English  of  their  own  day,  their  version  is  exempt  from  the 
faintest  shadow  of  blame.  It  is  quite  true  that  their  ren- 
dering has  become  in  a  certain  measure  inexact  for  us,  but 
this  from  circumstances  quite  beyond  their  control,  namely, 
through  those  mutations  of  language  which  never  cease,  and 
which  cause  words  innumerable  to  drift  imperceptibly  away 
from  those  meanings  which  once  they  owned.  In  many  cases, 
no  doubt,  our  Authorized  Version,  by  its  recognized  authori- 
ty, by  an  influence  silently  working,  but  not  the  less  pro- 
foundly felt,  has  kept  words  in  their  places,  has  given  a  fixity 
and  stability  of  meaning  to  them  which  otherwise  they  would 
not  have  possessed ;  but  the  currents  at  work  in  language 
have  been  sometimes  so  strong  as  to  overbear  even  this  con- 
trolling power.  The  most  notable  examples  of  the  kind 
which  occur  to  me  are  the  following : 

Matt,  vi.,  25. — '■'■Take  no  thought  for  your  life  what  ye  shall 
eat,  or  w^hat  ye  shall  drink."  This  "take  no  thought"  is 
certainly  an  inadequate  translation  in  our  present  English  of 
p)  fiEpifivare.  The  precept,  as  we  read  it  now,  seems  to  ex- 
clude and  to  condemn  that  just  forward-looking  care  which 
belongs  to  man,  and  differences  him  from  the  beasts  which 
live  only  in  the  present ;  and  "  most  English  critics  have  la- 
mented the  inadvertence  of  our  Authorized  Version,  which,  in 
bidding  us  'take  no  thought'  for  the  necessaries  of  life,  pre- 


ON  THE  ENOLISH  OF  OUR  VERSIOK  37 

scribes  to  us  what  is  impracticable  in  itself,  and  would  be  a 
breach  of  Christian  duty  even  were  it  possible."*  But  there 
is  no  "  inadvertence"  here,  nor,  in  this  point  at  least,  at  Matt. 
X.,  19.  When  our  translation  was  made, "  Take  no  thought" 
was  a  perfectly  correct  rendering  of  /u>)  fxepinvare.  "  Thought" 
was  then  constantly  used  as  equivalent  to  anxiety  or  solicit- 
ous care,  as  let  witness  this  passage  from  Bacon  :f  "  Harris, 
an  alderman  in  London,  was  put  in  trouble,  and  died  with 
thovght  and  anxiety  before  his  business  came  to  an  end ;"  or, 
still  better,  this  from  one  of  the  Somers  Tracts  (its  date  is  of 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth) :  "  In  five  hundred  years  only  two 
queens  have  died  in  child-birth.  Queen  Catharine  Parr  died 
rather  of  thoughVX  A  yet  better  example  even  than  either 
of  these  is  that  occurring  in  Shakespeare's  Julius  Ccesar^ 
("  ta/ce  thought,  and  die  for  Caesar"),  where  "  to  take  thought" 
is  to  take  a  matter  so  seriously  to  heart  that  death  ensues. 
A  comparison  of  1  Sam.  ix.,  5  with  x.,  2,  and  of  both  with  the 
oriscinal  text,  will  make  still  more  evident  what  force  our 
translators  gave  to  the  phrase  "  take  thought." 

Luke  xiii.,  7. — "Why  cumhereth  it  the  ground?"  "Cum- 
bereth"  seems  here  too  weak  and  too  negative  a  rendering 
of  K-arapyf7,  a  word  implying  active  positive  mischief;  and 
so  no  doubt  it  is  in  the  present  acceptation  of  "  to  cumber," 
which  means  no  more  than  "to  burden."  But  it  was  not 
so  always.  "To  cumber"  meant  once  to  vex,  annoy,  injure, 
trouble ;  Spenser  speaks  of  "  cumbrous  gnats."  It  follows 
that  when  Bishop  Andrews  quotes  the  present  passage,]] 
"  Why  troubleth  it  the  ground  ?"  (I  do  not  know  from  whence 
he  derived  this  "  troubleth,"  which  is  not  in  any  of  our  trans- 

*  Scrivener,  Notes  on  the  New  Testament,  vol.  i.,  p.  162  ;  and  comp.  Al- 
ford,  in  loco. 

t  History  0/ Henry  the  Seventh.  t  Vol.  i.,  p.  172. 

§  Act  ii.,  sc.  1.  The  Paston  Letters  (vol.  ii.,  p.  G9,  ed,  1840)  supply  an- 
other good  example ;  and  Golding's  Ovid,  b.  x.,  another : 

"  Seven  days  he  sat  forlorn  upon  the  bank,  and  never  eat 
A  bit  of  bread.    Care,  tears  and  thought,  and  sorrow  were  his  meat." 

II  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  40. 


38         TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

lations),  and  when  Coverdale  renders  it, "  Why  hindereth  it 
the  ground  ?"  they  seem,  but  are  not  really,  more  accurate 
than  our  own  translators  were.  The  employment  by  these 
last  of  "cumber"  at  Luke  x.,  40  (the  only  other  place  in  the 
Authorized  Version  Avhere  the  word  occurs),  is  itself  decisive 
of  the  sense  they  ascribed  to  it.  IlfptEo-n-aro  (literally  "  was 
distracted")  is  there  rendered  by  them  "  was  cumbered."* 

Acts  xvii.,  23. — "As  I  j^assed  by  and  beheld  your  <7euo- 
tio7is.^^  This  was  a  perfectly  correct  rendering  of  aeftaafiara 
at  the  time  our  translation  was  made,  although  as  much  can 
scarcely  be  aifirmed  of  it  now.  "  Devotions"  is  now  abstract, 
and  means  the  mental  offerings  of  the  devout  worshiper;  it 
was  once  concrete,  and  meant  the  outward  objects  to  which 
these  were  rendered,  as  temples,  altars,  images,  shrines,  and 
the  like ;  "Heiligthtimer"  De  Wette  has  very  happily  render- 
ed it;  comp.  Bel  and  Drag.,  27,  and  2  Thess.  ii.,  4,  the  only 
other  passage  in  the  New  Testament  where  the  word  occurs, 
and  where  we  have  rendered  Tuv-a  \ey6/xevov  Qeor  */  aif^afffia, 
"  all  that  is  called  God  or  that  is  loorshijoecV  It  is  such — not 
the  "  devotions"  of  the  Athenians  worshiping,  but  the  objects 
which  the  Athenians  devoutly  worshiped — Avhich  St.  Paul  af- 
firms that  he  "  beheld,"  or,  as  it  would  be  better, "  accurately 
considered"  [avaQn^pwv).  Yet  the  following  passage  in  Sid- 
ney's Arcadia  will  bear  out  our  translators,  and  justify  their 
use  of  "devotions"  as  accurate  in  their  time,  though  no  lon- 
ger accurate  in  ours :  "  Dametas  began  to  look  big,  to  march 
up  and  down,  swearing  by  no  mean  devotions  that  the  walls 
should  not  keep  the  coward  from  him."f 

*  I  have  no  doubt  that  most  readers  of  that  magnificent  passage  in  Julius 
Ciesar,  where  Antony  prophesies  over  the  dead  body  of  Casar  the  ills  of  which 
that  murder  shall  be  the  cause,  give  to  "cumber"  a  wrong  sense  in  the  fol- 
lowing lines : 

"Domestic  fuiy  and  fierce  civil  strife 
Shall  cumber  all  the  parts  of  Italy." 

They  understand,  shall  load  with  coi-pses  of  the  slain,  or,  as  we  say,  "encum- 
ber"—so  at  least  I  understood  it  long.  A  good,  even  a  grand  sense,  but  it  is 
not  Shakespeare's.     He  means,  shall  trouble  or  mischief. 

t  I  have  not  removed  this  paragraph  in  this  second  edition ;  but  the  fact 


ON  THE  ENGLISH  OF  OUR  VERSIOX.  39 

Acts  xix.,  37. — "Ye  liave  brouglit  hither  these  men,  who 
are  neither  robbers  of  churches  (lepocruXovQ),  nor  blasphem- 
ers of  your  goddess."  I  long  counted  this  "robbers  of 
churches"  if  not  positively  incorrect,  yet  a  slovenly  and  in- 
defensible transfer  of  Christian  language  to  heathen  objects  ; 
that  "robbers  of  temples^''  or  some  such  phrase,  should  rath- 
er have  stood  here.  But  there  is  no  incorrectness  in  the 
phrase,  as  judged  by  the  language  of  that  day.  "Church" 
is  in  constant  use  in  early  English  for  heathen  and  Jewish 
temples  as  well  as  for  Christian  places  of  worship.  I  might 
quote  a  large  array  of  proofs ;  I  suppose  Golding's  Ovid 
Avould  yield  fifty  examples  of  this  use.  Two,  however,  will 
suffice.  In  the  first,  which  is  fi-om  Holland's  Pllny^  the 
term  is  applied  to  a  heathen  temple  :  "  This  is  that  Latona 
which  you  see  in  the  Church  of  Concordia  in  Rome ;"  while 
in  the  second,  from  Sir  John  Cheke's  translation  of  St. Mat- 
thew, it  is  a  name  given  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem :  "  And, 
lo,  the  veil  of  the  Church  was  torn  into  two  parts  from  the 
top  downward"  (Matt.  xxvii.,51).f 

Acts  xxL,  15. — "After  three  days  we  tooh  up  our  carriages 
and  went  up  to  Jerusalem."  A  critic  of  the  early  part  of 
this  century  makes  himself  merry  with  these  words,  and  their 
inaccurate  rendering  of  the  original :  "  It  is  not  probable  that 
the  Cilician  tent-maker  was  either  so  rich  or  so  lazy."  And 
a  more  modern  objector  to  the  truthfulness  of  the  Acts  asks. 
How  could  they  have  taken  up  their  carriages,  when  there  is 
no  road  for  wheels,  nothing  but  a  mountain  track,  between 
Coesarea  and  Jerusalem  ?  But  "  carriage"  is  a  constant  word 
in  the  English  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuryj  for 

which  I  had  not,  but  ought  to  have  noted,  namely,  that  our  translators  give 
as  a  marginal  reading  "  gods  that  you  worship,  2  Thess.  ii.,  4,"  leaves  it,  on 
the  whole,  more  probable  that  they  employed  ' '  devotions, "  not  in  this  ob- 
jective, but  in  its  modern  subjective  sense,  in  which  case  the  rendering  is  not 
to  be  defended.  *  Vol.  ii.,  p.  502. 

t  Again,  in  Marlowe's  Translation  of  the  First  Book  of  Lucan : 
"These  troops  should  soon  pull  down  the  Church  of  Jove." 

X  Spartacus  charged  his  [Lentulus's]  lieutenants,  that  led  the  army,  over- 


40         TREXCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSIOX  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

baggage,  being  that  which  men  carry,  and  not,  as  now,  that 
which  carries  them.  Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt  that  it  is 
employed  by  our  translators  here,  as  also  in  one  or  two  other 
passages  where  it  occurs,  in  this  sense  (Judg.  xviii.,  21 ;  1 
Sam.  xvii.,  22) ;  and  while  so  understood,  the  Avords  "  took  up 
our  carriages"  are  a  very  sufficient  rendering  of  the  imaiceva- 
aafievoi  of  the  original.  The  Geneva  has  it  correctly,  though 
somewhat  quaintly, "  we  trussed  up  our  fardels." 

1  Cor.  iv.,  4. — "  I  know  nothing  bi/  myself."  This  hardly 
conveys  any  distinct  meaning  to  the  English  reader,  or,  if  it 
suggests  any,  it  is  a  wrong  one.  In  his  ohcev  i^/au-w  avvoila 
the  apostle  would  say, "I  know  nothing  of  myself,"  in  other 
words, "  against  myself;"  "I  have,  so  far  as  I  can  see  into  my 
own  heart  and  life,  a  conscience  void  of  offense."  Examples 
of  "  by"  thus  used  with  the  jDOwer  of  our  modern  "  against" 
are  not  common  even  in  our  early  literature,  but  from  time 
to  time  occur.  Thus,  in  Foxe's  Booh  of  Ifartyrs,  an  inquis- 
itor to  a  poor  woman  whom  he  is  examining,  "Thou  hast 
spoken  evil  words  by  the  queen  ;"  and  she  answers,  "  No  man 
living  upon  earth  can  prove  any  such  things  by  me."* 

Ephes.  iv.,  3. — ^'•Endeavoring  to  keep  the  unity  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace."  Passages  like  this,  in  which 
the  verb  "  endeavor"  occurs,  will  sometimes  seem  to  have 
been  carelessly  and  loosely  translated,  when,  indeed,  they 
were  rendered  with  perfect  accuracy  according  to  the  En- 
glish of  that  day.  "Endeavor,"  it  has  been  well  said,  "once 
denoted  all  possible  tension,  the  highest  energy  that  could 
be  directed  to  an  object.  With  us  it  means  the  last  feeble, 
hopeless  attempt  of  a  person  who  knows  that  he  can  not  ac- 
complish his  aim,  but  makes  a  conscience  of  going  through 
some  formalities  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  failure 
is  not  his  fault."f     More  than  one  passage  suffers  from  this 

threw  them,  and  took  all  their  carriaffe"  [ri/v  drroaKSvi^v  aVaffav].  North's 
Plutarch's  Lives,  p.  470. 

*  Examination  of  Elizabeth  Young  by  Martin  Hussie. 

t  Lincoln's-Inn  Sermons,  by  F.  D.  Maurice,  p.  156. 


O.V  THE  ENGLISH  OF  OUR  VERSION.  41 

change  in  the  force  of  "  endeavor,"  as  2  Pet,  i.,  15,  and  this 
from  the  Ephesians  still  more.  If  we  attach  to  "  endeavor" 
its  present  meaning,  we  may  too  easily  persuade  ourselves 
that  the  apostle  does  no  more  than  bid  us  to  attempt  to  pre 
serve  this  unity,  and  that  he  quite  recognizes  the  possibility 
of  our  being  defeated  in  the  attempt.  He  does  no  such 
thing;  he  assumes  success.  STrouSa^ojTfc  means  "giving  all 
diligence,"  and  "endeavoring"  meant  no  less  two  centuries 
and  a  half  ago. 

1  Tim.  v.,  4. — "If  any  widow  have  children  or  nepheics.'''' 
But  why,  it  has  been  asked,  are  tKyova  translated  "  nephews" 
here,  and  not  "  grandchildren"  or  "  descendants  ?"  and  why 
should' "nephews"  be  specially  charged  with  this  duty  of 
supporting  their  relatives  ?  The  answer  is,  that  "  nephcM's" 
(="nepotes")  was  the  constant  w^ord  for  grandchildren  and 
other  lineal  descendants,  as  witness  the  following  passages ; 
this  from  Hooker :  "  With  what  intent  they  [the  apocryphal 
books]  were  first  published,  those  words  of  the  nephew  of  Je- 
sus do  plainly  signify, 'After  that  my  grandfather  Jesus  had 
given  himself  to  the  reading  of  the  Law  and  of  the  Prophets, 
he  purposed  also  to  write  something  pertaining  to  learning 
and  wisdom  ;'  "*  and  this  from  Holland :  "  The  warts,  black 
moles,  spots,  and  freckles  of  fathers,  not  appearing  at  all 
upon  their  own  children's  skin,  begin  afterward  to  put  forth 
and  show  themselves  in  their  nephews.^  to  wit,  the  children  of 
their  sons  and  daughters."f  There  is  no  doubt  that  "  neph- 
ews" is  so  used  here,  as  also  at  Judges  xii.,  14.  Yet  it  has 
misled  a  scholar  so  accurate  as  the  late  Professor  Blunt,  who, 
writing  of  the  apostolic  times,  urges  that  in  them  the  duties 
of  piety  extended  so  far,  that  not  children  only,  but  "  neph- 
ews," were  expected  to  support  their  aged  relations-^ 

1  Pet.  ii.,  4, 5. — "  To  whom  coming,  as  unto  a  living  stone, 
....  ye  also  as  lively  stones  are  built  up."    Many  probably 

*  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  b.  v.,  c.  xx. 

t  Plutarch's  Morals,  p.  555. 

t  Church  of  the  First  Three  Centuries,  p.  27. 


42         TREXCH  OX  A  UTH.  VERSIOX  OF  XEW  TESTAMENT. 

before  now  have  wondered  and  regretted  that  \lQov  ^Hivra  be- 
ing translated  "  a  living  stone,"  \idoi  i^wvrec,  which  follows  im- 
mediately after,  should  be  no  more  than  ^Hively  stones;" 
"  living,"  as  apj^lied  to  Christ,  being  thus  brought  down  to 
"  lively,"  as  applied  to  Christians,  with  no  corresponding  re- 
duction in  the  original  to  warrant  it.  Xow  I  think  it  certain- 
ly is  to  be  regretted  that  our  translators  did  not  retain  one 
and  the  same  word,  namely,  "  living,"  in  both  places,  seeing 
that  they  found  one  and  the  same  in  their  original.  Still,  for 
all  this,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  "  lively"  was  far  more 
nearly  equipollent  to  "  living"  once  than  now  it  is,  even  if  it 
Avas  not  so  altogether.  Examj^les  in  proof  are  given  below.* 
I  can  not  but  think  that,  in  case  of  a  revision,  words  like 
these,  which  have  imperceptibly  shifted  their  position  since 
our  translation  was  made,  should  be  exchanged  for  others 
now  occupying  the  place  which  they  occupied  once.  Such 
words,  current  intellectual  money  still,  but  whose  value  is 
different  now  from  what  once  it  was,  are  more  perilous,  more 
likely  to  deceive  than  words  wholly  obsolete.  The  last  are 
like  rocks  which  stand  out  from  the  sea ;  we  are  warned  of 
their  presence,  and  there  is  little  danger  of  our  making  ship- 
wreck upon  them.  But  words  like  those  just  cited,  as  famil- 
iar now  as  they  ever  have  been,  but  employed  in  quite  dif- 
ferent meanings  from  those  which  they  once  possessed,  are 
hidden  rocks,  which  give  no  notice  of  their  presence,  and  on 
which  we  may  be  shipwrecked,  if  I  may  so  say,  without  so 
much  as  being  aware  of  it.  It  would  be  manifestly  desirable 
that  these  unnoticed  obstacles  to  our  seizing  the  exact  sense 
of  Scripture — obstacles  which  no  carelessness  of  our  transla- 
tors, but  which  Time  in  its  onward  course,  has  placed  in  our 
way — should  be  removed.     "  Res  fugiuut,  vocabula  manent" 

•  "-Had  I  but  seen  thy  picture  in  this  plight, 
It  would  have  madded  me.    What  shall  I  do, 
Now  I  behold  thy  lively  body  so  ?" 

Titiis  Aiidronicxis,  Act  iii,  sc.  1. 

"That  his  dear  father  might  interment  have. 
See,  the  young  man  entered  a  lively  grave." 

Massinger,  The  Fatal  Dowry,  Act  ii.,  sc.l. 


ox  THE  ENGLISH  OF  OUR  VERSION.  43 

— tliis  is  the  eternal  law  oi  things  in  their  relation  to  tcords, 
and  it  renders  necessary  at  certain  intervals  a  readjustment 
of  the  two. 

Let  me  too  observe  that  in  thus  changing  that  which  by 
the  silent  changes  of  time  has  become  liable  to  mislead,  we 
should  only  be  working  in  the  spirit,  and  according  to  the 
manifest  intention,  which  in  their  time  guided  the  translators 
of  IGll.  They  evidently  contemplated  as  part  of  their  task 
the  removing  from  their  revision  of  such  words  as  in  the  lapse 
of  years  had  become  to  their  contemporaries  unintelligible  or 
misleading.  For  instance,  "  to  depart"  no  longer  meant  to 
separate;  and  just  as  at  a  later  day,  in  1661,  "till  death  us 
depaW''  was  changed  in  the  Marriage  Service  for  that  which 
now  stands  there,  "till  death  us  do  part  ^''  so  in  their  revision 
"  separate"  was  substituted  for  "depart"  ("  depart  us  from  the 
love  of  God")  at  Rom.  viii.,  39,  "  To  allow"  hardly  meant 
any  longer  "to  praise"  (allaudare),  "to  have  pleasure  in;"  it 
was  not,  therefore,  suffered  to  remain  as  the  rendering  of 
tvloKiiv^  Heb.  xii.,  8,  though,  with  a  certain  inconsistency,  it 
was  left  at  Luke  xi.,  48  as  the  rendering  of  awtvloKdv :  "  con- 
sent," which  the  Rheims  has,  is  perhaps  a  little  too  weak,  yet 
preferable  there. 

At  Matt,  xxiii.,  25,  we  have  another  example  of  the  same. 
The  words  stood  there  up  to  the  time  of  the  Geneva  version, 
"  Ye  make  clean  the  outer  side  of  the  cup  and  of  the  platter, 
but  within  they  are  full  of  bribery  and  excess."  "  Bribery," 
however,  about  their  time  was  losing,  or  had  lost,  its  lean- 
ing of  rapine  or  extortion,  and  was,  therefore,  no  longer  a  fit 
rendering  of  apTrayj; ;  the  "  bribour"  or  "  briber"  was  not  equiv- 
alent to  the  robber:  they  therefore  did  wisely  and  well  in  ex- 
changing "  bribery"  for  "  extortion  here.  They  dealt  in  the 
same  spirit  with  "  noisome"  at  1  Tim.  vi.,  9.  In  the  earlier 
versions  of  the  English  Church,  and  up  to  their  revision,  it 
stood,  "  They  that  will  be  rich  fall  into  temptation  and  snares, 
and  into  many  foolish  and  noisome  (/3\a/3fpac)  lusts."  "Noi- 
some," that  is,  when  those  translations  were  made,  was  sim- 

T 


44         TRENCH  ON  A  UTII.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

ply  equivalent  to  noxious  or  hurtful  ;*  but  in  the  beginning 
of  the  seventeenth  century  it  was  acquiring  a  new  meaning, 
the  same  which  it  now  retains,  namely,  that  of  exciting  dis- 
gust rather  than  that  of  doing  actual  hurt  or  harm.  Thus  a 
tiger  would  have  been  "  noisome"  in  old  English ;  a  skunk  or 
a  polecat  would  be  "  noisome"  in  modern.  Here  was  reason 
enough  for  the  change  which  they  made. 

Indeed,  our  only  complaint  against  them  in  this  matter  is, 
that  they  did  not  carry  out  this  side  of  their  revision  con- 
sistently and  to  the  full.  Thus  they  have  suffered  the  very 
Avord  last  mentioned, "  noisome"  I  mean,  to  remain  in  some 
other  passages  from  which  it  should  no  less  have  disappeared. 
Three  or  four  of  these  occur  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  Job 
xxxi.,  40 ;  Psa.  xci.,  3  ;  Ezek.  xiv.,  21 ;  only  one  in  the  New, 
Rev.  xvi.,  2,  where  KaKov  eXkoq  is  certainly  not  "a  noisome 
sore"  in  our  sense  of  "  noisome,"  that  is,  offensive  or  disgust- 
ing, but  an  "  evil,"  or,  as  the  Rheims  has  it, "  a  cruel  sore." 
It  is  the  same  Avith  "  by-and-by."  This,  Avhen  they  wrote, 
was  ceasing  to  mean  "  immediately."  The  inveterate  procras- 
tination of  men  had  caused  it  to  designate  a  remoter  term, 
even  as  "  presently"  does  not  any  longer  mean  "  at  this  pres- 
ent," but  "  in  a  little  while ;"  and  "  to  intend  any  thing"  is 
not  now  "  earnestly  to  do,"  but  "  to  purpose  doing  it."  They 
did  well,  therefore,  that  in  many  cases,  as  at  Mark  ii.,  12,  they 
did  not  leave  "  by-and-by"  as  a  rendering  of  tldewg  and  evdvg. 
They  would  have  done  still  better  if  they  had  removed  it  in 
every  case,  and  not  suffered  it  in  four  places  (Matt,  xiii.,  21; 
Mark  vi.,  25  ;  Luke  xvii.,  1 ;  xxi.,  9)  to  remain. 

Again,  "  to  grudge"  was  ceasing  in  their  time  to  have  the 
sense  of"  to  murmur  openly,"  and  Avas  already  signifying  "to 
repine  inwardly;"  a  "grudge"  Avas  no  longer  an  open  utter- 
ance of  discontent  and  displeasure  at  the  dealings  of  another,! 

*  "  lie  [the  superstitious  person]  is  persuaded  that  they  be  gods  indeed, 
but  such  as  be  noisome,  hurtful,  and  doing  mischief  unto  men."  Holland, 
Plutarch's  Morals,  p.  2G0. 

t  "Yea,  without  grudging,  Christ  suffered  the  cruel  Jews  to  crown  him 


ox  THE  ENGLISH  OF  OUR  VERSIOK  45 

but  a  secret  resentment  thereupon  entertained.  It  Avas  only- 
proper,  therefore,  that  they  should  replace  "  to  grudge"  by 
"  to  murmur,"  and  a  "  grudge"  by  a  "  murmuring,"  in  such 
passages  as  Mark  xiv.,  5 ;  Acts  vi.,  1.  On  two  occasions, 
however,  they  have  suffered  "  grudge"  to  stand,  where  it  no 
longer  conveys  to  us  with  accuracy  the  meaning  of  the  orig- 
inal, and  even  in  their  time  must  have  failed  to  do  so.  These 
are  1  Pet.  iv.,  9,  where  they  render  avev  yoyyv(r/xw^', "  without 
grudging,"  and  James  v.,  9,  where  ju>)  (TTEva^ere  is  rendered 
"  Grudge  not."*  These  renderings  were  inherited  from  their 
predecessors,  but  their  retention  was  an  oversight. 

In  another  instance  our  translators  have  failed  to  carry  out 
to  the  full  the  substitution  of  a  more  appropriate  phrase  for 
one,  which  indeed,  unlike  those  others,  could  have  been  at  no 
time  worthy  of  praise,  or  any  thing  else  than  more  or  less 
misleading.  They  plainly  felt  that  "Easter,"  which  had 
designated  first  a  heathen,  and  then  a  Christian  festival,  was 
not  happily  used  to  set  forth  a  Jewish  feast,  even  though  that 
might  occupy  the  same  place  in  the  Jewish  calendar  which 
Easter  occupied  in  the  Christian ;  and  they  therefore  removed 
"  Easter"  from  places  out  of  number  where  in  the  earlier  ver- 
sions it  had  stood  as  the  rendering  of  Ylafrxa,  substituting 
"Passover"  in  its  room.  "With  all  this,  they  have  suffered 
"Easter"  in  a  single  instance  —  at  Acts  xii,,  4,  "intending 
after  Easter  to  bring  him  forth  to  the  people" — to  remain ; 
sometimes,  I  am  sure,  to  the  perplexity  of  the  English  read- 
er. "Jewry,"  in  like  manner,  which  has  been  replaced  by 
"Judoea"  almost  every  where  else,  has  yet  been  allowed,  I 
must  needs  believe  by  the  same  oversight,  twice  to  continue 
(Luke  xxiii.,  5  ;  John  vii.,  1). 

with  most  sharp  thorns,  and  to  strike  him  with  a  reed."  Examination  of 
William  Thorpe,  in  Foxe's  Book  of  Martyrs. 

*  As  an  evidence  of  the  perplexity  which  "  gnidge,"  used  as  it  is  here,  was 
calculated  to  create,  see  Manton's  Commentary  on  St.  James,  in  loco,  1651,  p. 
r)+9,  who  is  "unwilling  to  recede  from  our  own  translation," but  is  unable  to 
accept  "Grudge  not,"  to  which  he  gives  its  modern  sense,  as  a  fair  rendering 
of  firj  anvaZiTi,  which  indeed,  so  regarded,  it  is  not. 


46         TRENCH  OX  A  UTH.  YERSIOJSr  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Thus  much  in  regard  of  obsolete  uses  of  words  not  in 
themselves  obsolete  ;  but  the  way  of  dealing  with  words  act- 
ually themselves  obsolete  is  not  by  any  means  so  clear.  It 
does  not,  indeed,  seem  difficult  to  lay  down  a  rule  here  ;  the 
difficulties  mainly  attend  its  application.  The  rule  seems  to 
me  to  be  this  :  Where  words  have  become  perfectly  unintel- 
ligible to  the  great  body  of  those  for  whom  the  translation  is 
made,  the  lliwrai  of  the  Church,  they  ought  clearly  to  be  ex- 
changed for  others  ;  for  the  Bible  works  not  as  a  charm,  but 
as  reaching  the  heart  and  conscience  throucfh  the  intcUisxent 
faculties  of  its  hearers  and  readers.  Thus  is  it  with  "taches," 
"  ouches,"  "  knops,"  "  neesings,"  "  mufflers,"  "  wimples,"  "  ha- 
bergeon," "brigandine,"  "  boiled,"  "  ear"  {arare), "  daysman," 
in  the  Old  Testament,  M^ords  dark  even  to  scholars,  where 
their  scholarship  is  rather  in  Latin  and  Greek  than  in  early 
English.  Of  these,  however,  there  is  hardly  one  in  the  New 
Testament.  There  is,  indeed,  in  it  no  inconsiderable  amount 
of  archaism,  but  of  a  quite  different  character  ;  Avords  which, 
while  they  are  felt  by  our  people  to  be  old  and  unusual,  are 
yet,  if  I  do  not  deceive  myself,  jDcrfectly  understood  by  them, 
by  wise  and  simple,  educated  and  uneducated  alike.  These, 
shedding  round  the  sacred  volume  the  reverence  of  age,  re- 
moving it  from  the  ignoble  associations  which  will  often 
cleave  to  the  language  of  the  day,  should  on  no  account  be 
touched,  but  rather  thankfully  acknowledged  and  carefully 
pi-eserved.  "The  dignity  resulting  from  archaisms,"*  in 
Bishop  Horsley's  words, "  is  not  to  be  too  readily  given  up." 
For,  indeed,  it  is  good  that  the  phraseology  of  Scripture 
should  not  be  exactly  that  of  our  common  life;  that  it  should 
be  removed  from  the  vulgarities,  and  even  the  familiarities, 
of  this  ;  just  as  there  is  a  sense  of  fitness  which  dictates  that 
the  architecture  of  a  church  should  be  different  from  that  of 
a  house. 

It  might  seem  superfluous  to  urge  this,  yet  it  is  far  from 
so  being.  It  is  well-nigh  incredible  what  words  it  has  been 
*  Biblical  Criticism,  vol.  iii.,  p.  301. 


ox  THE  ENGLISH  OF  OUR  VEESION.  47 

sometimes  proposed  to  dismiss  from  our  version  on  the 
ground  that  they  "  are  now  almost  or  entirely  obsolete." 
Symonds  thinks  "clean  escaped"  (2  Peter  ii,,  18)  "a  very 
low  expression ;"  and,  on  the  plea  of  obsoleteness,  Wemyss 
proposed  to  get  rid  of  "  straightway,"  "  haply,"  "  twain," 
"athirst,"  "wax,"  "lack,"  "ensample,"  "jeopardy,"  "gar- 
ner," "  passion,"  with  a  multitude  of  other  words  not  a  whit 
more  aloof  from  our  ordinary  use.  Purver,  whose  N'ew  and 
Literal  Translation  of  the  Old  and  Neio  Testament  appeared 
in  1764,  has  an  enormous  list  of  expressions  that  are  "  clown- 
ish, barbarous,  base,  hard,  technical,  misapplied,  or  new  coin- 
ed," and  among  these  are  "  beguile,"  "boisterous,"  "  lineage," 
"perseverance,"  "potentate,"  "remit,"  "seducers,"  "shorn," 
"  swerved,"  "  vigilant,"  "  unloose,"  "  unction,"  "  vocation." 
For  each  of  these  (many  hundreds  in  number)  he  proposes  to 
substitute  some  other. 

And  the  same  worship  of  the  fleeting  present,  of  the  tran- 
sient fashions  of  the  hour  in  language,  with  the  same  con- 
tempt of  that  stable  past  which  in  all  likelihood  will  be  the 
enduring  future,  long  after  these  fashions  have  passed  away 
and  are  forgotten,  manifests  itself  to  an  extravagant  degree 
in  the  version  of  the  American  Bible  Union.  It  needs  but 
for  a  word  to  have  the  slightest  suspicion  of  age  iipon  it,  to 
have  ceased,  it  may  be  only  for  the  moment,  to  be  the  cur- 
rent money  of  the  street  and  the  market-place,  and  there  is 
nothing  for  it  but  peremptory  exclusion.  "  Chasten"  and 
"chastening,"  "to  better,"  "to  faint,"  "to  quicken,"  "con- 
versation," "  saints,"  "  wherefore,"  "  straitly,"  "  wroth,"  with 
hundreds  more,  are  thrust  out,  avowedly  upon  this  plea,  and 
modern  substitutes  introduced  in  their  room.  I  can  fancy  no 
more  effectual  scheme  for  debasing  the  version,  nor,  if  it  were 
admitted  as  the  law  of  revision,  for  the  lasting  impoverish- 
ment of  the  English  tongue.  One  can  only  compare  this 
course  with  a  custom  of  the  Fiji  islanders,  who,  as  soon  as 
their  relations  begin  to  show  signs  of  age,  put  them  out  of 
the  way.     They,  however,  have  at  least  this  to  say  for  them- 


48         TRENCH  ON  A  UTR.  VEBSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

selves,  that  these  old  would  grow  older,  more  helpless,  more 
burdensome  every  day.  It  is  nothing  of  the  kind  with  the 
words  which,  on  something  of  a  similar  plea,  are  forcibly  dis- 
missed. A  multitude  of  these,  often  the  most  precious  ones, 
after  a  period  of  semi-obsoleteness,  of  withdrawal  from  active 
service  for  a  while,  obtain  a  second  youth,  jDass  into  free  and 
unquestioned  currency  again.  In  proof  of  this,  we  need  only 
to  refer  to  such  a  document  as  Speght's  Glossary  of  "  old  and 
obscure  words"  in  Chaucer,  of  date  1667.*  A  very  large  pro- 
portion of  these  are  not  "  old"  and  not  "  obscure,"  have  not 
the  faintest  shadow  of  obsoleteness  clinging  to  them  at  the 
present.  But  nothing  would  so  effectually  hinder  this  reju- 
venescence, this  palingenesy  of  words,  as  the  putting  a  ban 
upon  them  directly  they  pass  out  of  vulgar  use ;  as  this  reso- 
lution, that  if  they  have  withdrawn  for  ever  so  brief  a  time 
from  the  every-day  service  of  men,  they  shall  never  be  per- 
mitted to  return  to  it  again.  A  true  lover  of  his  native 
tongue  will  adopt  another  course. 

"  Obscurata  diu  populo  bonus  eruet ;" 
and  words  which  are  in  danger  of  disappearing,  instead  of 
bidding  them  begone,  he  will  do  his  best  to  win  back  and  to 
detain. 

This  retaining  of  the  old  diction  in  all  places  where  a  high- 
er interest,  that,  namely,  of  being  understood  by  all,  did  not 
imperatively  require  the  substitution  of  another  phrase,  would 
be  most  needful,  not  merely  for  the  reverence  which  attaches 
to  it,  and  for  the  avoiding  every  unnecessary  disturbance  in 
the  minds  of  the  people,  but  for  the  shunning  of  another  dan- 
ger, which  ought  not  lightly  to  be  hazarded.  Were  the  sub- 
stitution of  new  for  old  carried  out  to  any  large  extent,  this 
most  injurious  consequence  would  follow,  namely,  that  our 
translation  would  be  no  longer  of  a  piece,  not  any  more  one 
web  and  Avoof,  but  in  part  English  of  the  seventeenth  centu- 
ry, in  part  English  of  the  nineteenth.     Now,  granting  that 

*  See  some  more  proofs  of  the  same  in  my  English  Past  and  Present, 
fourth  edition,  p.  80. 


O^V  THE  ENGLISH  OF  OUR  VERSION.  49 

English  of  the  nineteenth  century  is  as  good  as  English  of 
the  seventeenth,  of  Avhich  there  may  be  very  reasonable 
doubts,  still  they  are  not  the  same ;  the  differences  between 
them  are  considerable.  Some  of  these  differences  we  can  ex- 
plain, others  we  must  be  content -only  to  feel.  But  even 
those  who  could  not  explain  anj^  part  of  them  would  yet  be 
conscious  of  them,  would  be  pained  by  such  a  work  in  a  sense 
of  incongruity,  of  new^  patches  on  an  old  garment,  and  of 
those  failing  to  agree  with  this.*  Now  all  will  admit  that  it 
is  of  vast  importance  that  the  Bible  of  the  nation  should  be 
a  book  capable  of  being  read  with  delight — I  mean  quite 
apart  from  its  higher  claim  as  God's  Word  to  be  read  with 
devoutest  reverence  and  honor.  It  can  be  so  now.  But  the 
sense  of  pleasure  and  satisfaction  in  it,  I  mean  merely  as  the 
foremost  English  classic,  would  be  greatly  impaired  by  any 
alterations  which  seriously  affected  the  homogeneousness  of 
its  style.  And  this,  it  must  be  remembered,  is  a  danger  al- 
together nevr,  one  which  did  not  at  all  beset  the  former  re- 
visions. From  Tyndale's  first  edition  of  his  New  Testament 
in  1526  to  the  Authorized  Version  there  elapsed  in  all  but 
eighty-five  years,  and  this  period  was  broken  up  into  four  or 
five  briefer  portions  by  Cranmer's,  Coverdale's,  the  Geneva, 
the  Bishops'  Bible,  which  were  published  in  the  interval  be- 
tween one  date  and  the  other.  But  from  the  date  of  King 
James's  Translation  (1611)  to  the  present  day  nearly  tw^o 

*  The  same  objection  would  attend  the  introduction  of  words  in  themselves 
old,  but  employed  in  modern  senses,  such  as  were  quite  foreign  to  them  when 
our  Version  was  made.  For  instance,  the  American  Bible  Union  substitutes 
"reflexion"  for  "discretion,"  asarendering  of  naTp,Prov.  ii.,  11.  But  "re- 
flexion" was  not  used  to  designate  a  mental  operation  till  toward  the  end  of 
the  seventeenth  century.  It  belongs  to  the  Lockian  period  of  mental  philos- 
ophy, not  to  the  Baconian  ;  if,  indeed,  Locke  himself  was  not  the  first  to  em- 
ploy "reflexion"  in  this  sense.  "Webster,  in  like  manner,  substitutes  "ex- 
pire" for  "give  up  the  ghost;"  but  "expire,"  in  this  sense  at  least, belongs 
also  to  the  latter  half,  not  to  the  former,  of  the  same  centuiy.  He  substitutes 
"plunder"  for  "spoil" — a  worse  error;  for  "to  plunder,"  as  is  familiar  to 
most,  was  a  word  unknown  to  the  language  till  it  was  brought  here,  just 
about  the  beginning  of  our  Civil  ^yars,  by  some  who  had  served  under  Gus- 
tavus  Adolphus  in  Germany. 


50         TRENCH  OX  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

hundred  and  fifty  years  liave  elapsed ;  and  more  than  this 
time,  it  can  not  be  doubted,  will  have  elapsed  before  any 
steps  are  actually  taken  in  this  matter.  When  we  argue  for 
the  facilities  of  revision  now  from  the  facilities  of  revision  on 
previous  occasions,  we  must  not  forget  that  the  long  interval 
of  time  which  has  elapsed  since  our  last  review  of  the  En- 
o-lish  text,  so  very  much  longer  than  lay  between  any  of  the 
preceding,  has  in  many  Avays  immensely  complicated  the 
problem,  has  made  many  precautions  necessary  now,  Avhich 
would  have  been  superfluous  then,* 

Certainly,  too,  when  we  read  what  manner  of  stuff  is  offer- 
ed to  us  in  exchange  for  the  language  of  our  Authorized  Ver- 
sion, we  learn  to  prize  it  more  highly  than  ever.  Indeed,  we 
hardly  know  the  immeasurable  worth  of  its  religious  diction 
till  we  set  this  side  by  side  with  what  oftentimes  is  proffered 
in  its  room.  Thus,  not  to  speak  of  some  suggested  changes 
which  would  be  positively  offensive,  wc  should  scarcely  be 
gainers  in  perspicuity  or  accuracy  if  for  Jam.  i.,  8,  which  now 
stands  "A  double-minded  man  is  unstable  in  all  his  ways," 
we  were  to  read,  "A  man  unsteady  in  his  opinions  is  uucon- 
stant  in  all  his  actions"  (Wemyss).  Our  gains  would  not  be 
gi'eater  if  "  Count  it  all  joy  when  ye  fall  into  divers  tempta- 

*  It  is  an  eminent  merit  in  the  Revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  by  Five 
Clergymen,  of  which  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
have  already  appeared,  that  they  have  not  merely  urged  by  precept,  but  sho\vn 
by  proof,  that  it  is  possible  to  revise  our  Version,  and  at  the  same  time  to  pre- 
serve unimpaired  the  character  of  the  English  in  which  it  is  composed.  Nor 
is  it  only  on  this  account  that  we  may  accept  this  work  as  by  far  the  most 
hopeful  contribution  which  we  have  yet  had  to  the  solution  of  a  great  and 
difficult  problem,  but  also  as  showing  that  where  reverent  hands  touch  that 
building,  which  some  would  have  wholly  puUed  down  that  it  might  be  wholly 
built  up  again,  these  find  only  the  need  of  here  and  there  replacing  a  stone 
which  liad  been  incautiously  built  into  the  wall,  or  which,  trustwortliy  materi- 
al once,  has  now  yielded  to  the  lapse  and  injury  of  time,  while  they  leave  the 
building  itself  in  its  main  features  and  frame-work  untouched.  Differing  as 
the  revisers  occasionally  do  even  among  themselves,  they  will  not  wonder  that 
others  sometimes  differ  from  the  conclusions  at  which  they  have  arrived ;  but 
there  can,  I  think,  be  no  diflference  upon  this  point,  namely,  that  their  work 
deserves  the  most  grateful  recognition  of  the  Church. 


ox  THE  EXGLTSir  OF  OUR  YERSIOX.  51 

tions"  (Jam.  i.,  2)  were  replaced,  as  Turubull,  one  of  our  latest 
workers  in  this  field,  would  have  it,  by  the  following :  "  Keep 
yourselves  perfectly  cheerful  when  you  are  exposed  to  a  va- 
riety of  trials."  So,  too,  the  first  clause  of  Col.  ii.,  22  may 
not  be  very  satisfactory  as  it  now  stands ;  yet  who  would 
recognize  "  injunctions  which  are  all  detrimental  by  their  im- 
proper use,"  which  is  Turnbull's  again,  as  indeed  an  improved 
translation  ?  Xeithcr  would  the  advantage  be  very  evident 
if"  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with"  (Luke  xii.,  50)  gave 
place  to  "  I  have  an  immersion  to  undergo."  "  "Wrath  to 
come"  we  may  well  be  contented  to  retain,  though  we  are  of- 
fered "  impending  vengeance"  in  its  place.  "  Shall  cut  hira 
asunder"  is  certainly  a  more  vigorous,  not  to  say  a  more  ac- 
curate rendering  of  cixorofiliaei  than  "  will  punish  hira  with 
the  utmost  severity"  (Matt,  xxiv.,  51).  There  is  not  so  great 
plainness  of  speech  in  "  the  deadness  of  Sarah's  womb"  that 
it  needs  to  be  exchanged  for  "  Sarah's  incapacity  for  child- 
bearing"  (Rom.  iv.,  20).*  "In  chambering  and  wantonness" 
would  not  be  improved  on  even  though  we  were  to  substi- 
tute for  it  "  in  unchaste  and  immodest  gratifications."  Dr. 
Campbell's  work  "0?i  the  Four  Gospd^''  contains  disserta- 
tions which  have  their  A'alue  ;  yet  the  profit  would  be  small 
of  superseding  Mark  vi.,  19,20,  as  it  now  stands,  by  the  fol- 
lowing: "This  roused  Herodias's  resentment,  who  would  have 
killed  John,  but  could  not,  because  Herod  respected  him,  and, 
knowing  him  to  be  a  just  and  holy  man,  protected  him,  and 
did  many  things  recommended  by  him,  and  heard  him  with 
pleasure."  Of  Ilarwood's  Liberal  Translation  of  the  Neio  ^ 
Testament  (London,  1768),  and  the  follies  of  it,  not  very  far 
from  blasphemous,  it  is  unnecessary  to  give  any  specimens. 

*  I  thought  at  first  that  it  was  the  mere  love  of  slip-slop  in  the  place. of 
genuine  English  which  had  induced  this  change ;  but  when,  turning  to  anoth- 
er page  of  Mr.  Sawyer's  new  Version  (Boston,  1858),  from  which  this  and  the 
last  specimen  are  drawn,  I  met,  "Can  he  become  an  unborn  infant  of  his 
mother  a  second  time?"  substituted  for  "  Can  he  enter  the  second  time  into 
his  mother's  womb?"  (John  iii.,  4),  I  at  once  recognized  that  it  was  that  ex- 
aggerated sense  of  propriety,  so  rife  in  America,  which  we  more  justly  count 
impropriety,  that  dictated  both  these  alterations. 


52         TRENCH  ON  AUTII.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

When  WG  consider,  not  the  words  of  our  Version  one  by 
one,  but  the  words  in  combination,  as  they  are  linked  to  one 
another,  and  by  their  position  influence  and  modify  one  an- 
other— in  short,  the  accidence  and  the  syntax,  this,  beino- 
good,  is  yet  not  so  good  as  the  selection  of  the  words  them- 
selves. There  are  undoubtedly  inaccuracies  and  negligences 
here.  Bishop  Lowth  long  ago  pointed  out  several  faults  in 
the  grammatical  construction  of  sentences  ;*  and  although  it 
must  be  confessed  that  now  and  then  he  is  hypercritical,  and 
that  his  objections  Avill  not  stand,  yet  others  which  he  has 
not  pressed  Avould  be  found  to  supply  the  place  of  those  which 
must  therefore  be  withdrawn. 

But  here  too,  and  before  entering  on  this  matter,  there  is 
room  for  the  same  observation  which  Avas  made  in  respect  of 
the  words  of  our  translation.  Many  charges  have  also  been 
lightly  and  ignorantly,  some  presumptuously,  made.  Our 
translators  now  and  then  appear  ungrammatical  because  they 
J  give  us,  as  they  needs  must,  the  grammar  of  their  own  day, 
and  not  the  grammar  of  ours.f  It  is  curious  to  find  Bishop 
NewcomeJ  taking  them  to  task  for  using  "his"  or  "her" 
where  they  ought  to  have  used  "  its,"  as  in  passages  like  the 
following :  "  But  if  the  salt  have  lost  Jiis  savor,  wherewith 
shall  it  be  salted  ?"  (Matt,  v.,  13).  "  Charity  doth  not  behave 
itself  unseemly,  seeketh  not  Jier  own"  (1  Cor.  xiii.,  5  ;  comp, 

J  *  In  his  Short  Introduction  to  English  Grammar. 

t  The  French  Academy,  in  the  Preface  to  the  new  Dictionnaire  Ilistoriqite 
de  la  Lunrjue  Franfaise,  lias  some  excellent  remarks  in  respect  of  acts  of  sim- 
ilar injustice  which  often  are  committed,  p.  xv. :  "Ces  ecrivains  y  seront 
quelquefois  de'fendus  centre  d'indiscretes  critiques,  qui  leur  ont  reproche' 
comme  des  fautes  de  langage  ce  qui  n'c'tait  que  I'emploi  legitime  de  la  langue 
de  leur  temps.  A  chaque  epoque  s'etablissent  des  habitudes,  des  conventions, 
des  riigles  mcme,  anxquelles  n'ont  pii  assure'ment  se  conformer  par  avance  Ics 
dcrivains  des  epoques  antcrieures,  et  qu'il  n'est  ni  juste  ni  raisonnable  de  leur 
opposer,  comme  s'il  s'agissait  de  ces  premiers  principes  dont  I'autontc  est  ab- 
solue  et  universelle.  C'est  pourtant  en  vertu  de  cette  jurisprudence  retroact- 
ive qu'ont  etc  condamnees,  chez  d'excellents  auteurs,  des  manieres  de  par- 
lor alors  admises,  et  auxquelles  im  long  abandon  n'a  pas  toujours  enlevd  ce 
qu'elles  avaient  de  grace  et  de  vivacite'." 

X  Historical  View  of  the  English  Biblical  Translations,  Dublin,  1 792,  p.  289. 


ox  THE  ENGLISH  OF  OUR  YEESIOX.  53 

Rev.  xxii.,  2).  "  This  sometimes,"  he  complains,  "  introduces 
strange  confusion."  But  this  "  confusion,"  as  he  calls  it, "  this 
inaccuracy  in  grammar,"  as  Webster  has  styled  it,  was  indeed 
no  confusion,  no  inaccuracy  at  all.  When  our  translators 
Avrote,  it  was  inevitable,  or  at  least  could  only  be  avoided  by 
circumlocutions,  as  by  the  use  of  "  thereof;"  nor,  moreover, 
did  this  usage  present  itself  as  any  confounding  of  masculine 
and  neuter,  or  of  personal  and  impersonal,  at  the  time  when 
our  Version  was  made ;  for  then  that  very  serviceable,  but 
often  very  inharmonious  little  word  "its,"  as  a  genitive  of  >/ 
"it,"  had  not  appeared,  or  had  only  just  appeared,  timidly 
and  rarely,  in  the  language,*  and  "  his"  was  quite  as  much  a  / 
neuter  as  a  masculine. 

Others  have  in  other  points  found  fault  with  the  grammar 
of  our  Version  where,  in  like  manner,  they  "have  condemned 
the  guiltless,"  their  objections  frequently  serving  only  to  re- 
veal their  own  unacquaintance  with  the  history  and  past  evo- 
lution of  their  native  tongue — an  unacquaintance  excusable 
enough  in  others,  yet  hardly  in  those  who  set  themselves  up 
as  critics  and  judges  in  so  serious  and  solemn  a  matter  as  is 

*  I  have  elsewhere  entered  on  this  matter  somewhat  more  fully  (^English 
Past  and  Present,  4tli  ed.,  p.  128  sqq.),  and  have  there  observed  that  "its" 
nowhere  occurs  in  our  Authorized  Version.  Lev.  xxv.,  5  ("of  its  own  ac- 
cord"), which  had  been  urged  as  invalidating  my  assertion,  does  not  so  real- 
ly; for  reference  to  the  first,  or,  indeed,  to  any  of  the  early  editions,  will 
show  that  in  them  the  passage  stood  "of  z7  own  accord."  Nor  is  "it"  here 
a  misprint  for  "its;"  for  we  have  exactly  the  same  "by  it  own  accord"  in 
the  Geneva  Version,  Acts  xli.,  10  ;  and  in  other  English  books  of  the  begin- 
ning of  the  seventeenth  century,  which  never  employ  "its."  Thus,  in  Rog- 
ers's Naaman  the  Syrian,  published  in  1 G42,  but  the  lectures  delivered  some 
eight  years  earlier  :  "I  am  at  this  mark,  to  withdraw  the  soul  from  the  life 
of  it  own  hand,"  Preface,  p.  i. ;  and  again :  "  The  power  of  the  Spirit  is  such 
that  it  blows  at  it  own  pleasure,"  p.  441 ;  and  once  more :  "The  scope  which 
mercy  proposes  to  herself  in  the  turning  of  the  soul  to  God,  even  the  glory 
oi it  own  self,"  p.  442.  There  are  a  few  examples  of  "its"  in  Shakespeare, 
but  several  of  "  it,"  as  it  were  gradually  preparing  the  other's  way.  Thus, 
in  The  Winter^ s  Tale,  Act  iii.,  sc.  2  :  "The  innocent  milk  in  it  most  inno- 
cent mouth;"  and  again,  ^j'n^  John,  Act  ii.,sc.  1:  "Go  to  it  grandame, 
child."  There  is  a  full  treatment  of  this  word,  with  notices  of  the  first  ap- 
pearance of  it,  in  Mr.  Craik's  very  valuable  work,  On  the  English  of  Shake- 
speare, p.  !)1. 


54         TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

here  brought  into  judgment.  This  ignorance  is  indeed  some- 
times surprising.  Thus  Wemyss*  complains  of  a  false  con- 
cord at  Rev.  xviii.,  17:  "For  in  one  hour  so  great  riches  is  • 
come  to  naught."  He  did  not  know  that  "  riches"  is  proper- 
ly no  plural  at  all,  and  the  final  "  s"  in  it  no  sign  of  a  plural, 
but  belonging  to  the  word  in  its  French  form,  "  richesse,''' 
and  that  "riches"  has  only  become  a  plural,  as  "alms"  and 
"  eaves"  are  becoming,  and  "  peas"  has  become,  such,  through 
a  general  forgetfulness  of  this  fact.  When  Wiclifie  wants  a 
plural  he  adds  another  "  s,"  and  writes  "  richessis"  (Rom.  ii., 
4 ;  Jam,  v.,  2).  At  the  same  time  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that, 
when  our  Version  was  made, "  riches"  was  already  commonly 
regarded  and  dealt  with  as  a  plural ;  in  this  Version  itself  it 
is  generally  so  used,f  and  therefore  it  would  have  been  better 
for  consistency's  sake  if  they  had  made  no  exception  here ; 
but  there  is  no  grammatical  en-or  in  the  case  any  more  than 
when  Shakespeare  writes,  "The  riches  of  the  ship  is  come  to 
shore."  The  same  objector  finds  fault  with  "  asked  an  alms'''' 
(Acts  iii.,  3),  and  suggests  "  asked  some  alms'''  in  its  room,  ev- 
idently on  the  same  assumption  that  "  alms"  is  plural.  Nei- 
ther can  he  tolerate  our  rendering  of  1  Tim.  v.,  23:  "Use  a 
little  wine  for  thine  often  infirmities;"  but  complains  of  "oft- 
en," an  adverb,  here  used  as  though  it  were  an  adjective; 
while,  indeed,  the  adjectival  use  of  "oft,"  "often,"  surviving 
still  in  "  o/Ztimes,"  "  o/ientimes,"  is  the  primary,  the  adverb-  * 
ial  merely  secondary. 

But,  all  frivolous,  ungrounded  objections  set  aside,  there 
will  still  remain  a  certain  number  of  passages  where  the 
grammatical  construction  is  capable  of  improvement.  In  gen- 
eral, the  very  smallest  alteration  will  set  every  thing  right. 
These  are  some : 

Heb,  V,,  8. — "Though  he  xcere  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obe-* 

*  Biblical  Gleanings,  p.  212. 

t  But  not  always;  for  at  Jer.  xlviii.,  36  it  stood  in  the  early  editions, 
"  The  riches  that  he  hath  gotten  is  perished."  In  such  modern  editions  as  I 
have  consulted, "  is"  has  been  tacitly  changed  into  ' '  are." 


Oy  THE  ENGLISH  OF  OUR  VERSION.  55 

dience  by  the  tilings  wliich  he  suffered."  If  the  apostle  had 
been  putting  a  possible  hypothetical  case,  this  would  be  cor- 
rect ;  for  example,  "  Though  he  slay  me,  yet  will  I  trust  in 
him"  (Job  xiii,,  15),  is  without  fault.  But  here,  on  the  con- 
trary, he  is  assuming  a  certain  conceded  fact,  that  Christ  was 
a  Son,  and  that,  being  such,  and  though  he  loas  such,  yet  in 
this  way  of  suffering  he  learned  obedience.  "Though"  is 
here  a  concessive  conditional  particle,  the  Latin  "etsi"  or 
"  etiamsi"  as  followed  by  an  indicative,  and  should  have  it- 
self been  followed  by  such  in  our  Version.  It  ought  to  be, 
"Though  he  loas  a  Son,  etc." 

John  ix.,  31. — "  If  any  man  be  a  worshiper  of  God,  and  do- 
eth  his  will,  him  he  heareth."  As  in  the  passage  just  noted 
we  have  a  subjunctive  instead  of  an  indicative,  an  actual  ob- 
jective fact  dealt  with  as  though  it  were  only  a  possible  sub- 
jective conception,  so  here  we  have  just  the  converse,  an  in- 
dicative instead  of  a  subjunctive.  It  is  true  that  in  modern 
English  the  subjunctive  is  so  rapidly  disappearing,  that  "If 
any  man  doeth  his  will"  might  very  well  pass.  Still  it  was 
an  error  when  our  translators  wrote ;  and  there  is,  at  any 
rate,  an  inconcinnity  in  allowing  the  indicative  "  doeth,"  in 
the  second  clause  of  the  sentence,  to  follow  the  subjunctive 
"  be"  in  the  first,  both  equally  depending  upon  "  if:"  one 
would  gladly,  therefore,  see  a  return  to  "(?o  his  will,"  which 
stood  in  Tyndale's  version. 

1  John  v.,  15. — "And  if  we  know  that  he  hear  us,  whatso- 
ever we  ask,  we  know  that  we  have  the  petitions  that  we  de- 
sired of  him."  In  this  sentence  the  two  verbs  "know"  and 
"  hear"  are  not  both  dependent  on  "  if,"  but  only  the  former ; 
"hear,"  therefore,  inherited  from  Tyndale,  is  incorrect,  and 
the  correction  of  the  Geneva  version  should  have  been  admit-* 
ted;  "And  if  we  know  that  lie  heareth  us,  etc." 

Matt,  xvi.,  15. — "  Whom  say  ye  that  I  am  ?"  The  English 
is  faulty  here.  It  ought  plainly  to  be,  "  Who  say  ye  that  I 
am ;"  as  is  evident  if  only  "  who"  be  put  last :  "  Ye  say  that 
I  ara  u"Ao.^"     The  Latin  idiom,  ''^  Quern  me   esse  dicitis?" 


56         TREXCE  Oy  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  XEW  TESTAMENT. 

probably  led  our  translators,  and  all  who  went  before  them, 
astray.  Yet  tlie  eases  are  not  in  the  least  parallel.  If  the 
English  idiom  had  allowed  the  question  to  assume  this  shape, 
"  Whom  say  ye  me  to  be?"  then  the  Latin  form  would  have 
been  a  true  parallel,  and  also  a  safe  guide ;  the  accusative 
"  w^om,"  not,  indeed,  as  governed  by  "  say,"  but  as  correla- 
tive to  the  accusativ^e  "  wie,"  being  then  the  only  correct  case, 
as  the  nominative  "  who,"  to  answer  to  the  nominative  "  I," 
is  the  only  correct  one  in  the  passage  as  it  now  stands.  The 
mistake  repeats  itself  on  several  occasions ;  thus,  at  Matthew 
xvi.,  13  ;  Mark  viii.,  27, 29 ;  Luke  ix.,  18, 20 ;  Acts  xiii.,  25.       ' 

Heb.  ix.,  5. — "And  over  it  the  cherubims  of  glory."  But  • 
"  cherubim"  being  already  plural,  it  is  excess  of  expression 
to  add  another,  an  English  plural,  to  the  Hebrew,  which  our 
translators  on  this  one  occasion  of  the  word's  occurrence  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  always  in  the  Old,  have  done.  Their 
choice  was  between  "  cherubim"  or  "  cherubs."  Li  this  latter 
case  they  would  have  dealt  with  "  cherub"  as  a  naturalized 
English  word,  forming  an  English  plural.  There  would  have 
been  nothing  to  object  to  this,  just  as  there  would  be  noth- 
ing to  object  to  "  automatons"  or  "  terminuses,"  which  ulti- 
mately, no  doubt,  will  be  the  plurals  of  "  automaton"  and 
"  terminus,"  as  "  dogmas"  and  not  "  dogmata"  (Hammond)  is 
now  the  plural  of  "  dogma ;"  while  there  would  be  much  to 
object  to  "  automatas,"  or  "  terminies,"  or  to  "  erratas,"  though, 
strangely  enough,  we  find  this  in  Jeremy  Taylor,  as  we  do 
"  synonymas"  in  Mede.  It  might  be  free  to  use  either  "  ge- 
niuses" or  "  genii"  as  the  plural  of  "  genius"  (we  do,  in  fact, 
employ  both,  though,  like  the  Latin  "  loci"  and  "  loca,"  in  dif- 
ferent senses),  but  not  "geniies;"  and  it  is  exactly  this  sort 
of  error  into  which  our  translators  have  here  fallen. 

Phil,  ii.,  3. — "  Let  each  esteem  other  better  than  themselves^    • 
Compare  with  this  Rev.  xx.,  13:  "They  were  judged,  every    * 
man  according  to  their  works."     The  same  exception  must 
be  taken  against  both  passages.    "Each"  and  "  every,"  though 
alike  implying  many,  alike  resolve  that  many  into  its  units, 


ON  THE  ENGLISH  OF  OUR  VERSION.  57 

and  refer  to  it  in  these  its  constituent  parts,  with  only  the 
difference  that  "  each"  segregates,  and  "  every"  aggregates 
the  units  which  compose  it. 

tf>  Rev.  xxi.,  12.  —  "And  had  a  wall  great  and  high."  The 
verb  "had"  is  here  without  a  nominative.  All  that  is  neces- 
sary is  to  return  to  Wicliffe's  translation:  "And  it  had  a 
wall  great  and  high." 

0  Again,  we  much  regret  the  frequent  use  of  adjectives  end- 
ing in  "  ly"  as  though  they  were  adverbs.  This  termination, 
being  that  of  so  great  a  number  of  our  adverbs,  easily  lends 
itself  to  the  mistake,  and  at  the  same  time  often  serves  to 

•  conceal  it.  Thus  our  translators  at  1  Cor.  xiii.,5  say  of  char- 
ity that  it  "  doth  not  behave  itself  unseemly.''''  Now  this, 
at  first  hearing,  does  not  sound  to  many  as  an  error,  because 
the  final  "ly"  of  the  adjective  "unseemly"  causes  it  to  jDass 
with  them  as  though  it  were  an  adverb ;  but  substitute  an- 
other equivalent  adjective — say  "  doth  not  behave  itself  im- 
l^roper^''  or  "  doth  not  behave  itself  unhefittinrj''' — and  the  vi- 
olation of  the  laws  of  grammar  makes  itself  felt  at  once. 
Compare  Tit.  ii.,  12  :  "  soberly,  righteously,  and  godly  in  this 
present  world."  It  ought  to  be  "  godlily"  here,  as  "  unseem- 
lily"  in  the  other  passage ;  or,  if  this  repetition  of  the  final 
"  ly"  is  unpleasing  to  the  ear,  as  indeed  it  is,  then  some  other 
word  should  be  sought.  The  error,  which,  it  must  be  owned, 
can  plead  some  of  the  greatest  names  in  English  literature  in 
its  support,  recurs  in  2  Tim.  iii,,  12;  Jude  15  ;  and  is  not  un- 
frequent  in  the  Prayer-book.  Thus  we  find  it  in  the  Thirty- 
sixth  Article :  "  We  decree  all  such  to  be  rightly,  orderly^  and 
lawfully  consecrated.* 

*  It  is  curious  to  note  how  frequent  are  the  en-ors  arising  from  the  same 
cause.  Thus  I  remember  meeting  in  Foxe's  Book  of  Martyrs  (I  have  not 
the  exact  reference)  the  words  "if  this  he  perpend."  Here  it  is  clear  that 
Foxe  was  for  the  moment  deceived  by  the  tennination  of  "perpend,"  so  like 
the  usual  termination  of  the  past  participle,  and  did  not  observe  that  he  ought 
to  have  written  "if  this  be  perpended. "  How  often  we  hear  of  the  ' '  Diocle- 
tian persecution  :"  the  English  is  here  as  faulty  as  if  we  were  to  speak  of  the 
"Decitts  persecution : "  so,  too,  of  the  '"'' Novatian  schism."  In  each  case  the 
final  "an"  deceives.     In  our  own  day  Tennyson  treats  "eaves"  as  if  the 


58         TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Should  a  revision  of  our  version  ever  be   attempted,  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  same  principle  should  rule  in  dealing  » 
with  archaic  forms  as  I  have  sought  to  lay  down  in  respect  ^ 
of  archaic  words.     Nothing  but  necessity  should  provoke  al- ' 
teration  ;  thus  there  can  be  no  question  but  that  our  old  En-  • 
glish  prseterites  "  clave,"  "  drave,"  "  sware,"  "  tare,"  "brake," 
"spake,"  "strake,"  and  I  think   also  "lift,"  should  stand. 
They  are  as  good  English  now  as  they  were  two  centuries 
and  a  half  ago :  in  many  cases  they  are  the  forms  still  in  use 
among  our  common  people,  if  not  in  towns,  yet  in  the  coun- 
try ;  and  even  where  they  are  not,  they  create  no  perplexity 
in  the  minds  of  any,  but  serve  profitably  to  difference  the  ^ 
language  of  Scripture  from  the  language  of  common  and  ev- 
ery-day  life.     It  is  otherwise,  as  it  seems  to  me,  Avith  archa-  » 
isms  which  are  in  positive  opposition  to  the  present  usage 
of  the  English  tongue.     Thus  "  his"  and  "  her"  should  be  re- 
placed by  "its"  at  such  passages  as  Matt,  v.,  13;  Mark  ix., 
50  ;  Luke  xiv.,  34  ;  Rev.  xxii.,  2  ;  1  Cor.  xiii.,  5  ;  Avhich  might 
be  done  almost  without  exciting  the  least  observation ;  so 
also  "  which"  by  "  who,"  wherever  a  person,  and  not  a  thing, 
is  referred  to.    This,  too,  might  be  easily  done ;  for  our  trans- 
lators have  no  certain  law  here:  for  instance, in  the  last  chap- 
ter of  the  Romans,  "  which"  occurs  seven  times,  referring  to 
a  person  or  persons, "  M'ho"  exactly  as  often.    The  only  temp- 
tation to  retain  this  use  of"  which"  would  be  to  mark  by  its 
aid  the  distinction  between  oVrtc  and  '6c,  so  hard  to  seize  in 
English.    At  the  same  time,  a  retention  with  this  view  would 
involve  many  changes,  seeing  that  our  translators  did  7iot 
turn  "  which"  to  this  special  service,  but  for  oq  and  oariQ  cm- 
ployed  "  who"  and  "  which"  quite  promiscuously. 

final  "  s"  were  the  sign  of  the  phiral,  which  being  dismissed,  one  might  have 
"eave"  for  a  singular;  and  he  writes  "the  cottage  eave ;"  but  "eaves" 
( ' '  efese"  in  the  Anglo-Saxon)  is  itself  the  singular.  With  the  same  moment- 
ary inadvertence  Lord  Macaxxlay  deals  with  the  final  "s"  in  "Cyclops"'  as 
though  It  were  the  plural  sign,  and  speaks  in  one  of  the  late  volumes  of  his 
history  of  a  "Cyclop;"  and  pages  might  be  filled  with  mistakes  which  have 
their  origin  in  similar  causes. 


ox  THE  EXGLISH  OF  OUIi  YEESIOK  59 

Before  leaving  this  part  of  the  subject,  it  may  be  well  to 
observe  that  a  large  amount  of  tacit  unacknowledged  revi- 
sion of  our  vei'sion  has  found  place  at  different  times,  lead- 
ing to  the  removal  of  many  antiquated  forms,  out  of  which 
it  results  that  a  copy  of  the  Authorized  Bible  at  the  present 
day  differs  in  many  details  from  the  same  as  it  first  was  is- 
sued by  the  king's  printer,  though  professing  to  be  absolute- 
ly identical  with  it.     It  would  be  hypercritical  to  object  to 
all  which  has  been  in  this  way  done,  though  one  hardly  sees 
by  what  right  the  changes,  however  desirable,  were  made. 
The  following  alterations,  Avhich  have  come  under  my  eye, 
m  may  be  noticed.     "Moe,"  which  stood  in  several  places  in 
the  exemplar  edition  (at  John  iv.,  41 ;  Gal.  iv.,  27),  has  been 
rej^laced  by  "  more ;"  "  fet,"  the  old  perfect  of"  fetch,"  is  now 
sprinted  "fetched"  (Acts  xxviii.,  13) ;  "lift,"  where  it  stands 
,  as  a  perfect, has  been  altered  to  "lifted"  (Luke  xi.,  27;  Acts 
ix,,4l),  yet  not  uniformly,  for  in  more  than  one  place  "lift" 
has  been  allowed  to  stand  (Luke  xvi.,  23).     "Kinred,"  the 
»  older  form  of  the  word,  has  every  where  been  changed  into 
».  "  kindred ;"  and  "  flix" — this,  too,  the  older  form* — has  in  like 
IL    manner  yielded  to  "flux"  (Acts  xxviii.,  8).     "Apollo"  stood 
|„  in  several  places  instead  of  "Apollos,"  which  in  like  manner 
has  been  removed  (1  Cor.  iii.,  22 ;  iv.,  6) ;  "  ought,"  as  the  per- 
fect of"  owe,"  has  been  changed  into  "  owed"  (Matt,  xviii.,  24, 
28  ;  Luke  vii.,  41) ;  the  stately  "Hierusalem"  has  every  where 
been  changed  to  "  Jerusalem."    Less  to  be  justified  than  any 
'  of  these  is  the  change  of  "  broided,"  another  form  of  "  braid- 
i     ed,"  into  "  broidered"  (1  Tim.  ii.,  9) ;  while  least  excusable  of 
'.     all  is  the  change  of  "  shame/'asiness,"  in  the  same  verse,  into 

1/ "  shame/acef?ness,"  another  and  later  word  growing  out  of 
the  corruption  of  the  earlier.     "  Shamefastness"  is  formed 
^,    upon  "  shamefast,"  that  is, "  fast,"  or  established,  in  honorable 
;    "  shame ;"  just  as  "  steadfastness"  on  "  steadfast,"  "  soothfast- 
ness"  on  "  soothfast,"  "  rootfastness" — a  good  old  word  now 
let  go — on  "rootfast,"     To  change  this  into  "  shame/acec?- 
*  See  Holland, Plim/s  NaturalHistofy.  vol.  ii,,  pp.  37, 39, 40,  and  often. 

u  ' 


60         TEENCH  OX  A  UTH.  VEBSIOX  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

iicss"  is  to  alloAV  all  the  meaning  and  force  of  the  word  to 
run  to  the  surface,  to  leave  it  ethically  a  far  inferior  word, 
and  marks  an  unfaithful  guardianship  of  the  text,  both  on 
their  part  who  first  introduced,  and  theirs  who  have  so  long 
allowed  the  change. 


Oy  SOME  QUESTIONS  OF  TRANSLATION,  ETC.  gj 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ON   SOME    QUESTIONS    OP  TRANSLATION",  AND   THE   ANSWERS 
TO   THEM   AVHICH    OUR   TRANSLATORS    GAVE. 

I  HATE  already  touched  in  the  second  chapter,  devoted  ex- 
clusively to  this  subject,  on  various  graver  difficulties  which 
lie  in  the  path  of  the  translator,  some  of  which  it  is  only 
given  him  at  the  best  partially  to  overcome,  others  of  which 
will  wholly  overcome  him.  But,  besides  these  harder  ques- 
tions, not  to  be  solved,  or  to  be  solved  only  in  part,  there  are 
others,  themselves  also  oftentimes  hard  enough,  which  will 
offer  themselves  for  his  solution — which  will  meet  him,  so  to 
speak,  on  the  very  threshold  of  his  work.  I  propose  in  this 
chapter  a  little  to  consider  what  sort  of  answer  our  own 
translators  have  given  to  some  of  these  questions,  as  they 
presented  themselves  to  them.  It  need  scarcely  be  observed 
that,  wherever  they  acquiesced  in  and  adopted  the  answers 
which  their  predecessors  had  given,  they  did  by  this  course 
make  these  their  own,  and  we  have  a  right  to  regard  them 
as  responsible  for  such. 

Let  us  take,  first,  a  question  which  in  all  translation  is  con- 
stantly recurring — this,  namely :  In  what  manner  ought  tech- 
nical words  of  the  one  language,  which  have  no  exact  equiv- 
alents in  the  other,  which  indeed  can  not  have,  because  the 
exact  thing  itself  is  not  there,  to  be  rendered ;  ©ifiaaures,  for 
instance,  of  wet  and  dry,  as  the  ftaroQ  and  Kopoq  of  Luke  xvi., 
C,  7 ;  the  fxerprirfiQ  of  John  ii.,  6 ;  coins,  such  as  the  ci^paxfj-ov 
of  Matt,  xvii.,  24 ;  the  (rrarfip  of  Matt,  xvii.,  27 ;  the  ^pa-XFi  ^^ 
Luke  XV.,  8 ;  titles  of  honor  and  authority^  which  have  long 
since  passed  away,  and  to  which,  at  best,  only  remote  resem- 
blances now  exist,  as  the  ypafiixareve  and  vEivKopog  of  Acts  xix., 
35  ;  the  'Amc'ipxai  of  the  same  chapter,  ver.  31 ;  the  avdimaroQ 
of  Acts  xiii.,  V? 


62         TBEXCH  ON  A  UTH.  TERSIOX  OF  XEW  TESTAMEXT. 

The  ways  in  wliicli  such  words  may  be  dealt  witli  reduce 
themselves  to  four,  and  our  translators,  by  turns,  have  re- 
course to  them  all.  The  first,  which  is  only  possible  when 
the  etymology  of  the  word  shines  clearly  and  transparently 
through  it,  is  to  seize  this,  and  to  set  against  the  one  word 
another,  either  adopted  or  newly  coined,  which  shall  utter 
over  again  in  the  language  of  the  translation  what  the  orig- 
inal word  uttered  in  its  own.  It  is  thus,  for  instance,  with 
Cicero's  "  indolentia,"  which  he  invented  and  set  over  against 
the  cnrudeia  of  the  Stoics ;  his  "  veriloquium,"  as  against  the 
Greek  IrvfxoXoyia.  This  course  was  chosen  when  our  trans- 
lators rendered  "Apeioc  Trayoc,  "Mars  Hill"  (Acts  xvii.,  22), 
TSTpucioy,  "  quaternion"  (Acts  xii.,  4),  Aidvarpwroy,  "  the  Pave- 
ment" (John  xix.,  13) ;  when  Sir  John  Cheke  rendered  eKu-uy- 
rapxoe  "  hundreder"  (Matt,  viii.,  5),  (jfKriviai^oiievoc,  "  mooned" 
(Matt,  iv.,  24).  But  the  number  of  words  which  allow  of  this 
reproduction  is  comparatively  small.  Of  many  the  etymol- 
ogy is  lost ;  many  others  do  not  admit  the  formation  of  a 
corresponding  word  in  another  language.  This  scheme,  there- 
fore, Avhatever  advantages  it  may  possess,  can  of  necessity  be 
very  sparingly  applied. 

Another  method,  then,  is  to  choose  some  generic  word,' 
such  as  must  needs  exist  in  both  languages,  the  genus  of 
which  the  word  to  be  rendered  is  the  sjyecies,  and,  without  at- 
tempting any  closer  correspondence,  to  employ  this.  Our 
translators  have  frequently  taken  this  course ;  they  have 
done  so,  rendering  /3aroc,  kopos,  x"*'''^?  aa-oy,  alike  by  "  meas- 
ure" (Luke  xvi.,  6,  7  ;  Rev.  vi.,  6  ;  Matt,  xiii.,  33),  with  no  en- 
deavors to  mark  in  any  of  these  places  the  capacity  of  the 
measure ;  cpaxi^^)  by  "  piece  of  silver"  (Luke  xv.,  8),  ara-iip  by 
"piece  of  money"  (Matt,  xvii., 27),  not  attempting  in  either 
case  to  designate  the  value  of  the  coin ;  avdinra-og  by  "  depu- 
ty" (Acts  xiii.,  8),  arpa-rjyoi  by  "  magistrates"  (Acts  xvi.,  22), 
XtXt'apxoc  by  "  captain"  (Rev.  xix.,  18),  aiicapioi  by  "  murderers" 
(Acts  xxi.,  38),  fxayoi  by  "  wise  men"  (Matt,  ii.,  1).  A  mani- 
fest disadvantacre  which  attends  this  course  is  the  want  in 


Oy  SOME  QUESTIOXS  OF  TRAXSLATIOX,  ETC.  63 

the  copy  of  that  definite  distinctness  which  the  original  ix)s- 
sessed,  a  certain  vagueness  which  is  given  to  the  former,  with 
the  obliteration  of  all  strongly  marked  lines. 

Or,  thirdly,  they  may  seek  out  some  special  word  in  the 
language  into  which  the  translation  is  being  made  which 
»  shall  be  more  or  less  an  approximative  equivalent  for  that  in 
whose  place  it  stands.  "We  have  two  not  very  happy  illus- 
trations of  this  scheme  in  "  town-clerk,"  as  the  rendering  of 
ypanfiaTtvQ  (Acts  xix.,  35),  though  doubtless  the  town-clerk  in 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  century  was  a  very  different 
and  far  more  important  personage  than  now  ;*  and  "Easter" 
as  that  of  na<Txa  (Acts  xii,,4).  The  turning  ofEp^nj/c  into 
"Mercurius"  (Acts  xiv.,12)  is,  in  fact,  another' example  of 
the  same,  although  our  translators  themselves,  no  do^bt,  were 
unconscious  of  it,  seeing  that  in  their  time  the  essential  dis- 
tinction between  the  Greek  and  the  Italian  mythologies,  and 
the  fact  that  the  names  of  the  deities  in  the  former  were  only 
adapted  Avith  more  or  less  fitness  to  the  deities  of  the  latter, 
was  unknown  even  to  scholars.!  This  method  of  translating 
has  its  own  serious  drawback,  that,  although  it  often  gives  a 
distinct  and  vigorous,  yet  it  runs  the  danger  of  conveying  a 
more  or  less  false,  impression.  Except  by  a  very  singular 
felicity,  and  one  which  will  not  often  occur,  the  w^ord  select- 
ed, while  it  conveys  some  truth,  must  also  convey  some  error 
bound  up  with  the  truth.  Thus  KQlpav-riQ  is  not  what  we 
have  rendered  it,  "  a  farthing"  (Mark  xii.,  42),  and  aarrapiov 
(Matt.  X.,  29)  as  little ;J  nor  Zrivapiov  "a  penny"  (Matt,  xx.,  2), 

*  T.  G.,  the  author  of  some  Notes  and  Observations  vpon  some  Passages  of 
Scrijyture, Oxford,  1G4G,  p.  42,  would  substitute  "actuary" — scarcely  an  im- 
provement. He  complains  with  justice  (p.  45)  that  "a  worshiper"  is  too  fee- 
ble a  rendering  of  vewKopog,  Acts  xix.,  35,  and  would  put  "the  sacrist"  in  its 
room;  but,  while  much  might  be  said  in  favor  of"  sacrist,"  Hammond  also 
suggesting  it,  this  is  just  that  sort  of  word  which  our  translators  have  ever}' 
where  sought  to  avoid. 

t  Curiously  enough,  'Epiirjc,  one  of  the  Roman  Christians  whom  St.  Paul 
salutes  (Kom.  xvi.,  13),  is  also  rendered  "Mercurius"  in  Cranmer's  and  the 
Geneva  Version. 

t  How  far  our  words  foil  to  express  not  merely  the  actual,  but  the  relative 


64        TRENCH  ON  A  TJTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

nor  jxtTpriniQ  "  a  firkin"  (Jolin  ii.,  6) ;  not,  I  mean,  our  fartliing, 
or  penny,  or  firkin.  So,  too,  if "  j)iece  of  money"  is  a  vague 
translation  of  ^paxf^ri  (Luke  xv.,  8),"Wiclifie's  "bezant"  and 
Tyndale's  "  grote"  involve  absolute  error.  Add  to  this  the 
danger  that  the  coloring  of  one  time  and  age  may  thus  be 
substituted  for  that  of  another,  of  the  modern  world  for  the 
ancient,  a  tone  heathen  and  profane  for  one  sacred  and  Chris- 
tian ;  as  when  Golding,  in  his  translation  of  Ovid's  3Ieta- 
morp/iosis,  calls  the  Vestal  Virgins  "  nuns ;"  as  when  Holland, 
in  his  iiuy  and  elsewhere,  talks  of  "colonels,"  "wardens  of 
the  marches,"  renders  constantly  "  Pontifex  Maximus"  by 
"  archbishop,"  with  much  else  of  the  like  kind ;  and  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  inconveniences  attending  this  course  are  not 
small. 

There  remains  only  one  way  more — to  take  the  actual  word 
of  the  original,  and  to  transplant  it  unchanged,  or  at  most 
with  a  slight  change  in  the  termination — "  parce  detortum" 
— into  the  other  tongue,  in  the  trust  that  time  and  use  will, 
little  by  little,  cause  the  strangeness  of  it  to  disappear,  and 
its  meaning  gradually  to  be  acquired  even  by  the  unlearned. 
Plutarch,  in  his  Roman  Lives^  deals  thus  with  many  Latin 
words,  as  2tKTdrw|0,  ^ovpKifep,  Ka-rrerujXioy;  SO,  too,  our  latest 
Greek  historian,  where  others  had  spoken  of  "heavy-armed," 
of  "  targeteer,"  of  "  the  leadershi})  of  Greece,"  has  preferred 
"  hoplite,"  "  peltast,"  "  the  hegemony  of  Greece."  Our  trans- 
lators have  followed  this  course  in  respect  of  many  Hebrew 
words  in  the  Old  Testament,  as  "  Urim,"  "  Thummim,"  "  eph- 
od,"  "shekel,"  "cherub,"  "seraphim,"  "cor,"  "bath,"  "ephah;" 
and  of  some  Greek  in  the  New,  as  "  tetrarch,"  "  proselyte," 
"  Paradise,"  "  Pentecost,"  "  Messias ;"  or,  by  adopting  these 
words  from  preceding  translations,  have  acquiesced  in  the  fit- 
ness of  this  course.  At  the  same  time  they  have  felt  the  dan- 
values  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  moneys  for  which  they  stand,  may  he  seen  in 
the  fact  that  the  aaaapiov  is  four  times  more  vahiable  than  the  KoSpdvrrig, 
both  being  translated  "  farthing ;"  and  while  our  penny,  farthing,  mite,  stand 
in  the  relation  of  I,  ^,  J,  the  dt]vdpiov,  acrjdpiov,  and  Xenrov  stand  in  that  of  1, 

161  I'ii'S- 


Oy  SOME  QUESTIONS  OF  TBANSLATIOX,  ETC.  65 

ger  of  this  scheme.  We  have  uo  such  Avord  as  "  scenopegia" 
(in  the  Rheims  Version,  John  vii.,  2) ;  nor  have  we  stuffed 
our  version  with  "metretes,"  "assarion,"  "lepton,"  "sata," 
"choenix,"  "niodius,"  "hemorrhage,"  and  dozens  more  of  the 
same  kind,  witli  which  a  recent  translator,  who  designs  liis 
work  as  an  "  important  contribution  to  i^ractical  religion," 
and  also  flatters  himself  that  he  has  "  adopted  a  thoroughly 
modern  style,"  has  stuffed  his.  The  disadvantage  of  this 
course  evidently  is,  that  in  many  cases  the  adopted  word  con- 
tinues always  an  exotic  for  the  mass  of  the  people :  it  never 
tells  its  own  story  to  them,  nor  becomes,  so  to  speak,  trans- 
parent with  its  own  meaning.  And  therefore,  as  I  can  not 
but  think,  the  number  of  words  of  this  kind  which  occur  in 
Wicliffe's  translation  must  have  constituted  a  serious  draw- 
back to  its  popular  character,  while  at  the  same  time  they 
testify  strongly  to  the  embarrassments  which  awaited  the 
first  breaker  up  of  a  new  way.  I  refer  to  such  words  as  "  ar- 
chitriclyn"  (John  ii.,  8),  "prepucye"  (Rom.  ii.,  25),  "neome- 
nye"  (Col.  ii.,  16),  "  apocalips"  (Rev.  i.,  1),  "  diluvye"  (2  Pet. 
ii.,5),  and  the  like. 

w  It  is  impossible  to  adhere  with  a  strict  consistency  to  any 
one  of  these  devices  for  representing  the  things  of  one  con- 
dition of  society  by  the  words  of  another ;  they  must  all  in 

'  their  turn  be  appealed  to,  even  as  they  all  will  be  found 
barely  sufiicient.  Our  translators  have  employed  them  all. 
Their  inclination,  as  compared  with  others,  is  perhaps  toward 
the  second,  the  least  ambitious,  but  at  the  same  time  the 
safest,  of  these  courses.  Once  or  twice  they  have  chosen  it 
when  one  of  the  other  ways  appears  manifestly  preferable, 
as  in  their  rendering  oi avdv-Karog  by  "deputy"  (Acts  xiii.,  7, 
8,  12),  "proconsul"  being  ready  made  to  their  hands,  with 
Wicliffe's  authority  for  its  use. 

There  is  another  question,  doubtless  a  perplexing  one, 
which  our  translators  had  to  solve;  I  confess  that  I  much 
regret  the  solution  at  which  they  arrived.  It  was  this. 
How  should  they  deal  with  the  Hebrew  names  of  pla.ces-  and 


66         TREXCU  ON  A  UTIT.  YERSIOX  OF  XEW  TESTAMENT. 

of  persons  in  the  Old  Testament  which  had  gradually  as- 
sumed a  form  somewhat  different  from  their  original  on  the 
lips  of  Greek-speaking  Jews,  and  which  appeared  in  these 
their  later  Hellenistic  forms  in  the  Xew  Testament.  Should 
they  bring  them  back  to  their  original  shapes,  or  suffer  them 
to  stand  in  their  later  deflections  ?  Thus,  meeting  'H\me  in 
the  Greek  text,  should  they  render  it  "Elias"  or  "Elijah?" 
We  all  know  the  answer  which  for  the  most  part  they  gave 
to  this  question ;  but  I  am  not  the  less  deeply  convinced 
that,  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  vivid  and  strong  the  rela- 
tions between  the  Old  and  New  Testament  in  the  minds  of 
the  great  body  of  English  hearers  and  readers  of  Scripture, 
they  ought  to  have  recurred  to  the  Old  Testament  names, 
which  are  not  merely  the  Hebrew,  but  also  the  English 
names,  and  which,  therefore,  had  their  right  to  a  place  in  the 
English  text ;  that  'HX/ac,  for  instance,  should  have  been 
translated  into  that  which  is  not  merely  its  Hebrew,  but  also 
its  English  equivalent,  "  Elijah,"  and  so  with  the  others. 
They  have  acted  so  in  respect  of  "  Jerusalem ;"  and,  because 
they  found  'lepoaokvua  very  often  in  their  Greek  text,  they 
did  not,  therefore,  think  it  necessary  to  write  "  Hierosoly- 
ma."  To  measure  how  much  we  lose  by  the  scheme  Avhich 
they  have  preferred,  let  us  just  seek  to  realize  to  ourselves 
the  difference  in  the  amount  of  awakened  attention  among  a 
country  congregation  which  Matt,  xvii.,  10  would  arouse  if  it 
were  read  thus,  "And  his  disciples  asked  him,  saying,  Why 
then  say  the  Scribes  that  Elijah  must  first  come  ?"  as  com- 
pared with  what  it  now  is  likely  to  create.  Elijah  is  a  per- 
son to  them;  the  same  who  once  raised  the  widow's  son, 
who  on  Mount  Carmel  challenged  and  overcame  alone  the 
army  of  the  prophets  of  Baal,  who  went  up  in  a  fire-chariot 
to  heaven.     Elias  is  for  them  but  a  name. 

As  it  is,  we  have  a  double  nomenclature,  and  for  the  un- 
learned members  of  the  Church  a  sufficiently  perplexing  one, 
for  very  many  places  and  persons  of  the  earlier  Covenant. 
It  Avould  be  curious  to  know  how  many  of  our  people  recog- 


02f  SOME  QUESTIOXS  OF  TRANSLATION,  ETC.  g7 

nize  the  widow  of"  Zarephath"  (1  Kings  xvii.,  9)  in  the  wom- 
an of  "  Sarepta,"  spoken  of  by  our  Lord  in  the  synagogue  of 
Nazareth  (Luke  iv,,  26).  And  then  what  confusion  in  respect 
of  kings,  and  prophets,  and  others,  many  of  them  familiar 
enough  if  they  had  presented  themselves  in  their  own  forms, 
but  strange  and  unrecognized  in  their  Hellenistic  disguise ! 
Not  to  speak  of"  Elijah"  and  "  Elias,"  we  have  "  Elisha"  and 
"Eliseus"  (Luke  iv.,  26) ;  "Hosea"  and  "  Osee"  (Rom.  ix.,  25) ; 
"Isaiah"  and  "Esaias"  (Matt,  iii.,  3) ;  to  Avhich  the  Apocry- 
pha adds  a  third  form,  "Esay"  (Ecclus.  xlviii.,  22);  "Uzziah'" 
and  "  Ozias"  (Matt,  i.,  9) ;  "  Abijah"  and  "Abia"  (Matt,  i.,  7) ; 
"  Kish"  and  "  Cis"  (Acts  xiii.,  21) ;  "  Hezekiah"  and  "  Ezeki- 
as"  (Matt.i.,  10) ;  "Terah"  and  "Thara"  (Luke  iii.,  34) ;  "Zech- 
ariah"  and  "Zacharias"  (Matt,  xxiii.,  35) ;  "  Korah"  and  "Core" 
(this  last  commonly  pronounced  as  a  monosyllable  in  our  na- 
tional schools),  "Rahab"  and  "Rachab,"  "Peleg"  and  "Pha- 
leg,"  and  (most  unfortunate  of  all)  "  Joshua"  and  "  Jesus." 

It  is,  indeed,  hardly  possible  to  exaggerate  the  confusion 
of  which  the  "  Jesus"  of  Heb.  iv.,  8  must  be  the  occasion  to 
the  great  body  of  unlearned  English  readers  and  hearers,  not 
to  speak  of  a  slight  perplexity  arising  from  the  same  cause 
at  Acts  vii,,  45.  The  fourth  chapter  of  the  KLebrews  is  any- 
how hard  enough ;  it  is  only  with  strained  attention  that  we 
follow  the  apostle's  argument.  But  when  to  its  own  diffi- 
culty is  added  for  many  the  confusion  arising  from  the  fact 
that  "  Jesus"  is  here  used,  not  of  him  whose  name  is  above 
every  name,  but  of  the  son  of  Nun,  known  every  where  in 
the  Old  Testament  by  the  name  of  "Joshua,"  the  perplexity 
to  many  becomes  hopeless.  It  is  in  vain  that  our  translators 
have  added  in  the  margin,  "  that  is,  Joshua ;"  for  all  practi- 
cal purposes  of  excluding  misconception,  the  note,  in  most  of 
our  Bibles  omitted,  is  useless.  In  putting  "  Jesus"  here  they 
have  departed  from  most  of  our  preceding  versions,  and  from 
many  foreign.  Even  if  they  had  counted  that  the  letter  of 
their  obligation  as  translatprs,  which  yet  I  can  not  think, 
bound  them  to  this,  one  would  willingly  have  here  seen  a 


68         TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

breach  of  the  letter,  that  so  they  might  better  have  kept  the 
spirit. 

There  is  another  difficulty,  entailing,  however,  no  such  se- 
rious consequences,  even  if  the  best  way  of  meeting  it  is  not 
chosen :  how,  namely,  to  deal  with  Greek  and  Latin  i)roj)er 
names  ?  whether  to  make  them  in  their  terminations  English, 
or  to  leave  them  as  we  find  them  ?  Our  translators  in  this 
matter  adhere  to  no  constant  rule.  It  is  not  merely  that 
some  proper  names  drop  their  classical  terminations,  as 
"Paul,"  and  "  Saul,"  and  "Frban"  (Rom.  xvi.,  9),*  while  oth- 
ers, as  "  Silvanus,"  which  by  the  same  rule  should  be  "  Sil- 
van," and  "Mercurius,"  retain  it.  This  inconsistency  is  prev- 
alent in  all  books  which  have  to  do  with  classical  antiquity. 
There  is  almost  no  Roman  history  in  wliich  "  Pompey"  and 
"  Antony"  do  not  stand  side  by  side  with  "  Augustus"  and 
"Tiberius."  Merivale's,  who  also  writes  "Pompeius"  and 
"  Antonius,"  is  almost  the  only  exception  which  I  know.  If 
this  were  all,  there  would  be  little  to  find  fault  with  in  an  ir- 
regularity almost,  if  not  quite,  universal,  and  in  some  cases 
hardly  to  be  avoided  without  so  much  violence  done  to  usage 
as  might  leave  it  doubtful  whether  the  gain  exceeded  the 
loss.f  But  in  our  version  the  same  name  occurs  with  a 
Greek  or  Latin  ending,  now  with  an  English,  as  though  it 
were  now  "Pompeius"  and  now  "Pompey,"  now  "Antonius" 
and  now  "Antony,"  in  the  same  volume,  or  even  the  same 
page,  of  some  Roman  history ;  and  the  fault  extends  to  He- 
brew names  as  well.  Consistency  in  such  details  is  avowed- 
ly difficult,  and  the  difficulty  of  attaining  it  must  have  been 
much  enhanced  by  the  many  hands  that  were  engaged  in 
our  version.  But  it  is  strange  that  not  only  in  diffei-ent 
parts  of  the  New  Testament,  which  proceeded  from  different 

*  So  it  ought  to  be  printed  in  our  modern  Bibles,  not  "  Urbane,"  which  is 
now  deceptive,  though  it  was  not  so  according  to  the  orthography  of  IGll ; 
it  suggests  a  trisyllable,  and  the  termination  of  a  female  name.  It  is  OvpjSa- 
v6v  in  the  original. 

t  See  an  article  with  the  title  Orthographic  Mutineers,  in  the  Miscella- 
neous Essays  of  De  Quincey. 


ox  SOME  QUESTION'S  OF  TRANSLATION,  ETC.  gg 

hands,*  we  have  now  "Marcus"  (Col.  iv.,10;  Philem.  24;  1 
Pet.  v.,  13)  and  now  "Mark"  (Acts  xii.,  12,  25  ;  2  Tim.  iv.,  11) ; 
now  "  Lucas"  (postscript  to  2  Cor.)  and  now  "  Luke"  (2  Tim. 
iv.,  11) ;  now  "  Jeremias"  (Matt,  xvi.,  14)  and  noAV  "Jeremy" 
(Matt.  ii.jlV) ;  now  "  Apollos"  (Acts  xviii.,  24;  xix.,  l),now 
"Apollo"!  (1  Cor.  iii.,  22;  iv.,  C  );  now  "  Noe"  (Matt,  xxiv., 
38)  and  now  "Xoah"  (1  Pet.  iii., 20) ;  noAV  "Simon,  son  of 
Jonas"  (John  xxi.,  15,  16,  lY),  and  now  "Simon,  son  of 
Jona"  (John  i.,  42) ;  now  "Judas"  (Matt,  i.,2)  and  now  "  Juda" 
(Luke  iii.,  33;  Heb.  vii.,  14) :  this  in  resjiect  of  the  patriarch 
of  this  name,  while  the  apostle  is  now  "Judas"  (Acts  i.,  13) 
and  now  "  Jude"  (Jude  1) ;  now  "Timotheus"  (Acts  xvi.,  1) 
and  now  "  Timothy"  (Heb.  xiii.,  21) ;  but  in  the  same  chapter 
we  have  Ti^oQeoq  rendered  first  "Timothy"  (2  Cor.  i.,  1)  and 
then  "Timotheus"  («5.,  ver.  19).  In  like  manner  we  have 
"  Corinthus"  in  one  place  (postscript  to  the  Ep.  to  the  Ro- 
mans) and  "Corinth"  elsewhere;  "Sodoma"  (Rom.  :jKix.,  29) 
and  "  Sodom"  (Matt,  x.,  15 ;  Jude  *?) ;  while  the  inhabitants 
of  Crete  (Kpjjrfc)  are  now  "Cretes"  (Acts  ii.,  11),  which  can 
not  be  right,  and  now  "  Cretians"  (Tit.  i.,  12) ;  "  Cretans"  is  a 
form  preferable  to  both. 

There  are  other  inconsistencies  in  the  manner  of  dealing 
with  proper  names.  Thus"Af.£toc  Truyoq  is  "Areopagus"  at 
Acts  X vii.,  19,  while  three  verses  farther  on  it  is  "Mai-s  Hill." 
In  which  of  these  ways  it  ought  to  have  been  translated  may 
very  fairly  be  a  question ;  the  subsequent  mention  of  "  Dio- 
nysius  the  Areopagit^''  (ver.  34)  may  perhaps  give  a  prefer- 
ence to  the  former  rendering ;  but  one  rendering  or  the  oth- 
er, once  chosen,  should  have  been  adhered  to.  Then,  again, 
if  our  translators  gave,  as  they  properly  did,  the  Latin  tei-mi- 
iiation  to  the  names  of  cities,  "Ephesz/s,"  "Mileti^s,"  not 
"  Ephcsos,"  "  Miletos,"  they  should  have  done  this  through- 

*  In  the  same  way  it  is  "Tyrus"  throughout  Jeremiah  (xx^'i.,2),  and 
"TjTe"  throughout  Isaiah  (xxiii.,  o). 

t  This  latter  form,  manifestly  inconvenient,  as  confounding  the  name  of 
an  eminent  Christian  teacher  with  that  of  a  heathen  deity,  has  been,  as  al- 
ready remarked,  tacitly  removed  from  later  editions  of  our  Bible. 


70         TBENCH  OX  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

out,  and  written  "Assies"  (Acts  xx.,  13, 14)  and  "Pergam^<s" 
(Rev.  i.,  1 1 ;  ii.,  1 2),  not  "  Assos"  and  "  Pergamos."  In  regard 
of  this  last,  it  would  have  been  better  still  if  tbey  bad  em- 
ployed the  form  "  Pergamt(!??i  y"  for,  while  no  doubt  there 
are  examples  of  the  feminine  YiipyafioQ  in  Greek  authors,*  they 
are  excessively  rare,  and  the  city's  name  is  almost  always 
written  Yiepyanov  in  Greek,  and  "  Pergamum"  in  Latin. f  A 
singular  error,  exactly  reversing  this  one,  the  use  of  "  Mile- 
turn"  at  2  Tihi.  iv.,  20,  has  been  often  noted ;  an  error  into 
which  our  translators  would  probably  not  have  fallen  them- 
selves, but  have  inherited  it  from  the  versions  preceding,  all 
which  have  it.  Yet  it  is  strange  that  they  did  not  correct 
it  here,  seeing  that  it,  or  a  similar  error,  "Miletow,"  had,  at 
Acts  XX.,  15,  IV,  been  by  them  discovered  and  removed,  and 
the  city's  name  rightly  given,  "  Miletus ;"  although  in  the 
heading  even  of  this  chapter  also  they  have  suffered  "  Mile- 
tum"  to  stand.J 

It  is  the  carrying  of  one  rule  through  which  we  desire  in 
these  matters,  and  this  is  not  seldom  exactly  what  we  miss. 
Thus,  seeing  that  in  the  enumeration  of  the  precious  stones 
which  constitute  the  foundations  of  the  New  Jei'usalem  (Rev. 
xxi.,19,  20),  all  save  two,  which  are  capable  of  receiving  an 

*  Ptol. ,  T.  ii.  ;  comp.  Lobeck,  Phryniclms,  p.  422. 

t  Xenophon,  Anal.,  vii.,  8,  8  ;  Strabo,  xiii.,  4 ;  Pliny,  fl'. iV. ,  xxxv. ,  46. 

+  At  the  same  time,  it  is  very  possible  that  "Miletum"  was  originally  no 
error.  In  early  English,  as  very  often  in  German  at  the  present  day,  Latin 
and  Greek  words  are  declined,  and  given  the  termination  of  that  case  in 
■which  they  would  appear,  supposing  the  whole  sentence  to  have  been  com- 
posed in  one  of  these  languages.  Thus,  in  Wicliffe's  Version  (Rom.  xvi. ,  1 2), 
"  Greete  well  Trifenam  and  Trifosa?«."  Again,  in  the  Geneva  (Acts  xxvii., 
7),  "We  scarce  were  come  over  against  Gnidaw;"  in  Tyndale  (Acts  ix.,  3), 
"desired  of  him  letters  to  Damasco."  So,  too,  in  Capgrave's  Chronicle,  p. 
85  :  "lie  held  the  grete  Councille  of  Chalcidony  agcyn  Euticem  the  heretik." 
Nor  has  this  usage  wholly  passed  away.  In  Kingsley's  very  noble  poem  of 
Perseus  and  Andromeda,  they  appear,  once  at  least,  as  "Persea"  and  "An- 
dromeden."  I  can  not,  however,  think  that  this  allowing  the  proper  names 
which  we  use  to  assert  the  rights  of  their  own  grammar  against  those  of  the 
English  has  any  such  merits  that  it  should  be  reintroduced  among  us.  In  an 
English  sentence  they  must  learn  to  accommodate  themselves  to  English 
ways. 


ox  SOME  qUESTIOXS  OF  TRAXSLATIOX,  ETC.  ^•^l 

English  termination,  do  receive  it  —  thus,  "  beryl"  and  not 
"beryllus,"  "chrysolite"*  and  not  "  chrysolithus,"  "jacinth" 
and  not  "jacinthus"  —  we  might  fairly  ask  that  these  two, 
"  chrysoprasus"  and  "  sardius,"  should  not  be  exceptionally 
treated.  It  should  therefore  be  "  chry soprase,"  and  not "  chry- 
soprasus." "  Sardius"  may  be  objected  to  for  a  farther  rea- 
son. Sap^toi',  not  aaplioc,  is  the  Greek  name  of  this  stone,  as 
"  sarda"  is  the  Latin ;  and  aupcioq  hero  is  an  adjective  {sar- 
dius lapiSjTertullian),  quite  as  much  as  aupctvoq  at  Rev.  iv.,  3, 
Xtfloc,  which  is  there  exiDressed,  being  here  understood.  It 
would  have  been,  therefore,  more  correct  to  translate  "  a  sai'- 
dine  stone"  here,  as  has  been  done  there.  Two  other  ways, 
indeed,  lay  before  our  translators.  "  Sard"  has  been  natural- 
ized in  English ;  it  is  used  in  Holland's  JPliny ^  and  they 
might  have  adopted  this;  or,  best  of  all,  as  it  seems  to  me, 
they  might  have  boldly  ventured  upon  "  ruby,"  which  in  all 
likelihood  this  stone  Avas,  and  which  otherwise  we  miss  in  the 
present  enumeration  of  precious  stones,  though  it  is  very  un- 
likely that  a  stone  so  prized  should  be  absent  here.  "  Sar- 
dius," Avhich  they  have  employed,  seems  anjdiow  incorrect, 
though  the  Vulgate  may  be  quoted  in  its  favor, 

Hammond  affirms,  and  I  must  needs  consider  wath  reason, 
that  "  Tres  Tabernro"  should  have  been  left  in  its  Latin  form 
(Acts  xxviii.,  15),  and  not  rendered  "The  Three  Taverns." 
It  is  a  proper  name,  just  as  much  as  "  Appii  Forum,"  which 
occurs  in  the  same  verse,  and  which  rightly  we  have  not  re- 
solved into  "  The  Market  of  Appius."  Had  we  left  "  Tres 
Tabernai"  untouched  (I  observe  De  Wette  does  so),  we  should 
then  have  only  dealt  as  the  sacred  historian  has  himself 
dealt  with  it,  who  has  merely  written  it  in  Greek  letters,  not 
turned  it  into  equivalent  Greek  words.  As  little  should  we 
have  turned  it  into  English. 

Sometimes  our  translators  have  carried  too  far,  as  I  can 
not  but  think,  the  turning  of  qualitative  genitives  into  adjec- 

*  Misspelt  "chrysolyte,"  and  the  etymology  obscured,  in  nearly  all  our 
modern  editions,  but  correctly  given  in  the  exemplar  edition  of  IGll. 


72         TRENCH  ON  AUTR.  YHIiSIOX  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

tives.  Oftentimes  it  is  prudently  done,  and  with  a,  due  rec- 
ognition of  the  HebreAV  idiom  which  has  moulded  and  mod- 
ified the  Greek  phrase  Avith  which  they  have  to  deal.  Thus 
"  forgetful  hearer"  is  unquestionably  better  than  "  hearer  of 
forgetfulness"  (James  i.,  25) ;  "his  natural  face"  than  "face 
of  his  nature"  or  "  of  his  generation"  {ih.)  ;  "  unjust  steward" 
than  "steward  of  injustice"  (Luke  xvi,,  8).  Yet  at  other 
times  they  have  done  this  without  necessity,  and  occasional- 
ly with  manifest  loss.  "  Deceitful  lusts"  is  a  very  unsatis- 
factory substitute  for  "lusts  of  deceit"  (Eph.  iv.,  22),  "Son 
of  his  love,"  which  the  Rheims  Version  has,  would  have  been 
better  than  "beloved  son"*  (Col,  i.,  13) ;  "  the  Gospel  of  the 
glory"  than  "the  glorious  Gospel"  (1  Tim.  i.,  11);  and  cer- 
tainly "  the  body  of  our  vileness,"  or  "  of  our  humiliation," 
better  than  "  our  vile  body ;"  "  the  body  of  his  glory"  than 
"his  glorious  body"  (Phil,  iii.,  21).  "  The  uncertainty  of  rich- 
es," as  it  is  in  the  Rheims,  would  be  more  accurate  than  "  un- 
certain riches"  (1  Tim.  vi.,  17) ;  "appearing  of  the  glory,"  as 
in  the  Geneva,  than  "  glorious  appearing"  (Tit.  ii.,  13) ;  "  chil- 
dren of  the  curse"  than  "cursed  children"  (2  Pet.  ii.,  14);  in 
which  last  case  it  has  been  forgotten  that  there  was  a  second 
Hebraism,  that,  namely,  inherent  in  "  children,"  to  deal  with.f 
Okovofila  Qeov  can  never  mean  "godly  edifying"  (1  Tim.  i., 
4).  "  The  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God"  (Rom.  viii., 
21)  not  merely  comes  short  of,  but  expresses  something  veiy 
different  from,  "  the  liberty  of  the  glory  of  the  children  of 
God"  (see  Alford,  in  loco).  Doubtless  the  accumulated  gen- 
itives are  in  this  last  place  awkward  to  deal  with  :  it  was 
jjrobably  to  avoid  them  that  the  translation  assumed  its  pres- 
ent shape ;  but  still,  when  higher  interests  are  at  stake,  such 
awkwai'dness  must  be  endured,  and  elsewhere  our  translators 
have  not  shrunk  from  it,  as  at  Rev.  xvi.,  19 :  "  The  cup  of  the 
wine  of  the  fierceness  of  his  wrath." 

*  Augustine  (De  Trin.,  xv.,  19)  lays  a  dogmatic  stress  on  the  genitive 
("  Filius  caritatis  ejus  nuUus  est  alius,  quam  qui  de  substantia  Ejus  est  geni- 
tus"),  but  this  may  be  questioned. 

t  See  some  good  obseiTations  on  this  phrase  in  Scholefield's  Hints,  in  loco, 
p.  159. 


ox  SOJfE  QUESTIONS  OF  TMAXSLATION,  ETC.  73 

^  Calvary  is  a  Avorcl  so  consecrated  for  ns  that  one  is  almost 
unwilling  to  urge  that  it  has  no  right  to  a  place  in  our  Bi- 
bles ;  and  yet  it  certainly  has  none,  and  we  owe  to  the  Vul- 
gate, or  rather  to  the  influence  of  Latin  Christianity,  that  we 
find  it  there :  "  When  they  were  come  to  the  jilace  which  is 
called  Calvary,  there  they  crucified  him"  (Luke  xxiii.,  33). 
But  this  Kpaviov  ought  either  to  be  dealt  with  as  a  proper 
name,  in  which  case  "  Cranium"  would  be  the  right  rendering, 
or  else  translated, in  which  case  "A  Skull,"  not"  the  place  of 
a  skull,"  as  in  the  margin  here,  this  being  drawn  from  Matt, 
xxvii.,  33.  In  no  case  can  recourse  be  had  rightly  to  the 
Latin ;  or  a  Latin  name,  and  one  which  did  not,  as  applied 
to  this  place,  exist  till  many  centuries  aftei',  be  projDcrly  em- 
ployed. The  same  reasons  which  made  "  Calvaria"  (being 
the  name  for  a  skull  in  the  silver  age  of  Latinity)  appropriate 
in  the  Latin  translation,  make  "  Calvary"  inappropriate  in 
ours.  At  the  same  time,  I  would  much  rather  lie  under  the 
charge  of  inconsequence  than  suggest  that  it  should  be  now 
disturbed. 


74         TRENCH  OX  A  UTH.  VERSIOX  OF  XEW  TESTAMENT. 


CHAPTER  Y. 

ox    SOME    UNNECESSARY   DISTINCTIONS   INTRODUCED. 

It  may  be  well,  before  entering  on  this  subject,  to  make 
one  remark,  which,  having  an  especial  reference  to  the  sub- 
ject-matter of  this  and  the  following  chapter,  more  or  less 
bears  upon  all.  I  have  already  observed  that  the  advantages 
were  great  of  coming,  as  our  translators  did,  in  the  rear  of 
other  translators ;  of  inheriting  from  those  who  went  before 
them  so  large  an  amount  of  work  well  done,  of  successful 
renderings,  of  phrases  consecrated  already  by  long  usage  in 
the  Church.  It  was  a  signal  gain  that  they  had  not,  in  the 
fabric  which  they  were  constructing,  to  make  a  new  frame- 
work throughout,  but  needed  only  here  and  there  to  insert 
new  materials  Avhere  the  old  from  any  cause  were  faulty  or 
out  of  date ;  that  of  them  it  was  not  demanded  that  they 
should  make  a  translation  where  none  existed  before ;  nor 
yet,  as  they  have  remarked  themselves,  that  they  should 
bring  a  good  translation  out  of  bad  or  indifferent  ones ;  but 
only  a  best,  and  that  out  of  many  good  ones  preceding. 
None  who  have  ever  been  engaged  in  the  task  of  transfer- 
ring from  one  language  to  another  but  will  freely  acknowl- 
edge that  in  this  their  gain  was  most  real,  and  they  well  un- 
derstood how  to  turn  these  advantages  to  account. 

Yet,  vast  as  these  doubtless  Avere,  they  were  not  without 
certain  accompanying  drawbacks.  He  who  revises,  above 
all  when  he  addresses  himself  to  the  task  of  revision  with  a 
confidence,  here  abundantly  justified,  in  the  general  excel- 
lency of  that  which  he  is  revising,  is  in  constant  danger  of 
allowing  his  vigilance  to  sleej),  and  of  thus  passing  over  er- 
rors which  he  would  not  himself  have  originated  had  he  been 
thrown  altoscether  on  his  own  resources.    I  can  not  but  think 


OJV  SOME  UNXECESSAIi  T  DISTIXCTIOXS  INTR  OD  UCED.      ^  5 

that  in  this  Avay  the  Avatchfulness  of  our  translators,  or  re- 
visers rather,  has  been  sometimes  remitted,  and  that  errors 
and  inconsistencies  which  they  would  not  themselves  have 
introduced,  they  have  yet  passed  by  and  allowed.  A  large 
l^roportion  of  the  faults  in  our  translation  are  thus  an  inher- 
itance from  former  versions.  This  is  not,  indeed,  any  excuse ; 
for  they  who,  with  full  power  to  remove,  passed  them  hj,  be- 
came responsible  for  them ;  but  is  merely  mentioned  as  the 
probable  explanation  of  many  among  them.  With  this  much 
of  introduction,  I  will  j^ass  on  to  the  proi^cr  subject  of  this 
chapter. 

Our  translators  sometimes  create  distinctions  w'hich  have 
no  counterparts  in  their  original  by  using  two  or  more  words 
to  render  at  different  places,  or,  it  may  be,  at  the  same  place, 
a  single  word  in  the  Greek  text.* 

After  Avhat  has  been  urged  in  a  preceding  chapter,  it  will 
be  readily  understood  that  wg  by  no  means  make  a  general 
complaint  against  them  that  they  have  varied  their  words 
when  there  is  no  variation  in  the  original.  Oftentimes  this 
was  inevitable,  or,  if  not  inevitable,  was  certainly  the  more 
excellent  way.  What  we  do  complain  of  is  that  they  have 
done  this  where  it  was  wholly  gratuitous,  and  sometimes 
Avhere  the  force,  clearness,  and  j^recision  of  the  original  have 
consequently  suffered  not  a  little.  It  is  true  that  what  they 
did  here  they  did  more  or  less  with  their  eyes  open,  and  not 
altogether  of  oversight ;  and  it  will  be  only  fair  to  hear  what 
they,  in  an  Address  to  the  Header,  now  seldom  or  never  re- 
printed, but,  on  many  accounts,  well  worthy  of  being  so,f  say 

*  Hugh  Broughton  has  some  good  remarks  on  this  subject,  TFor is,  1GG2, 
p.  702. 

t  Their  "  pedantic  and  uncouth  prfeface"  S}Tnond3  calls  it.  There  would 
certainly  he  pedantrj-  in  any  one  now  writing  with  such  richness  and  fullness 
of  learned  allusion,  a  pedantry  from  which  our  comparatively  scanty  stores 
of  classical  and  ecclesiastical  learning  would  in  most  cases  effectually  presen-e 
us.  But  this  preface  is,  on  many  grounds,  a  most  interesting  study,  chiefly, 
indeed,  as  giving  at  considerable  length,  and  in  various  aspects,  the  view  of 
our  translators  themselves  in  regard  of  the  work  which  they  had  undertaken ; 
wliile,  "uncouth"  as  this  objector  calls  it,  every  true  knower  of  our  language 

X 


YG         TJiEXVH  ON  AUTH.  VEBSIOX  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

vipon  this  matter,  and  liow  they  defend  the  course  which  they 
have  adopted.  These  are  their  words :  "  Another  thing  we 
think  good  to  admonish  thee  of  (gentle  reader),  that  we  have 
not  tied  ourselves  to  a  uniformity  of  phrasing,  or  to  an  iden- 
tity of  words,  as  some  peradventure  would  wish  that  we  had 
done,  Lecause  they  observe  that  some  learned  men  some- 
will  acknowledge  it  a  masterpiece  of  English  composition.  Certainly  it  would 
not  be  easy  to  find  a  more  beautiful  or  more  afltecting  piece  of  writing  than 
the  twenty  or  thirty  lines  with  which  the  fourth  paragraph, "  Ok  the  praise 
of  the  Iloh)  Scriptures,^'  concludes.  And  this  much  I  will  quote  of  it  for  its 
own  sake,  and  in  the  hope  that  I  may  thus  assist  a  little  in  drawing  this  pref- 
ace from  the  obscurity  and  forgetfulness  into  which  it  has  been  so  strangely 
allowed  to  fall :  "  Men  talk  much  of  tlpemojvr},  how  many  sweet  and  goodly 
things  it  had  hanging  on  it ;  of  the  Philosopher's  stone,  that  it  turneth  cop- 
per into  gold  ;  of  Cornu-copia,  that  it  had  all  things  necessary  for  food  in  it ; 
of  Panaces  the  herb,  that  it  was  good  for  all  diseases ;  of  Catholicon  the  drug, 
that  it  is  instead  of  all  purges  ;  of  Vulcan's  Amior,  that  it  was  an  armor  of 
proof  against  all  thrusts,  and  all  blows,  etc.  Well,  that  which  they  falsely  or 
vainly  attributed  to  these  things  for  bodily  good,  we  may  justly  and  with  full 
measure  ascribe  unto  the  Scripture  for  spiritual.  It  is  not  only  an  armor, 
but  also  a  whole  armory'  of  weapons,  both  offensive  and  defensive,  whereby 
we  may  save  ourselves  and  put  the  enemy  to  flight.  It  is  not  an  herb,  but  a 
tree,  or  rather  a  whole  paradise  of  trees  of  life,  which  bring  forth  fruit  every 
month,  and  the  fruit  thereof  is  for  meat,  and  the  leaves  for  medicine.  It  is 
not  a  pot  of  manna  or  a  cruse  of  oil,  which  were  for  memory  only,  or  for  a 
meal's  meat  or  two,  but  as  it  were  a  shower  of  heavenly  bread  sufficient  for  a 
whole  host,  be  it  never  so  great,  and  as  it  were  a  whole  cellar  full  of  oil-ves- 
sels, whereby  all  our  necessities  may  be  provided  for,  and  our  debts  dis- 
charged. In  a  word,  it  is  a  Panajy  of  wholesome  food  against  fenowed  tra- 
ditions ;  a  Physician's  shop  (St.  Basil  calleth  it)  of  preservatives  against  poi- 
soned heresies ;  a  Pandect  of  profitable  laws  against  rebellious  spirits ;  a 
treasure  of  most  costly  jewels  against  beggarly  rudiments  ;  finally,  a  fountain 
of  most  pure  water  springing  up  unto  everlasting  life.  And  what  maiTel  ? 
the  original  thereof  being  from  heaven,  not  from  earth ;  the  Author  being 
God,  not  man  ;  the  Enditer,  the  Holy  Spirit,  not  the  wit  of  the  apostles  or 
prophets ;  the  penmen  such  as  were  sanctified  from  the  womb,  and  endued 
with  a  principal  portion  of  God's  Spirit ;  the  matter,  verity,  piety,  purity,  up- 
rightness ;  the  form,  God's  Word,  God's  testimony,  God's  oracles,  the  word 
of  truth,  the  word  of  salvation,  etc.  ;  the  effects,  light  of  understanding,  sta- 
bleness  of  persuasion,  repentance  from  dead  works,  newness  of  life,  holiness, 
peace,  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost ;  lastly,  the  end  and  reward  of  the  study  there- 
of, fellowship  with  the  saints,  participation  of  the  heavenly  nature,  fruition  of 
an  inheritance  immortal,  undefiled,  and  that  never  shall  fade  away  :  Happy 
is  the  man  that  delighteth  in  the  Scripture,  and  thrice  happy  that  meditateth 
in  it  day  and  night." 


Oy  SOME  UNNECESSAR  T  DISTINCTIOXS  INTRODUCED.     7 7 

where  have  been  as  exact  as  they  could  that  way.  Truly, 
that  we  might  not  vary  from  the  sense  of  that  which  we  had 
translated  before,  if  the  word  signified  the  same  in  both  places 
(for  there  be  some  words  be  not  of  the  same  sense  every 
where),  we  were  especially  careful,  and  made  a  conscience 
according  to  our  duty.  But  that  we  should  express  the 
same  notion  in  the  same  particular  word ;  as,  for  example,  if 
we  translate  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  word  once  hj  purpose., 
never  to  call  it  intent ;  if  one  where,  journeying,  never  travel- 
ing;  if  one  where  think,  never  suppose;  if  one  where  ^x«m, 
never  ache;  if  one  where  Joy,  never  glachiess,  etc.,  thus  to 
mince  the  matter,  we  thought  to  savor  more  of  curiosity  than 
wisdom,  and  that  rather  it  would  breed  scorn  in  the  atheist 
than  bring  profit  to  the  godly  reader.  For  is  the  kingdom 
of  God  become  words  or  syllables  ?  why  should  we  be  in 
bondage  to  them  if  we  may  be  free;  use  one  precisely,  when 
we  may  use  another  no  less  fit  as  commodiously  ?  We  might 
also  be  charged  (by  scofiers)  with  some  unequal  dealing  to- 
ward a  great  number  of  good  English  words.  For  as  it  is 
written  of  a  certain  great  philosopher  that  he  should  say  that 
those  logs  were  happy  that  were  made  images  to  be  worship- 
ed ;  for  their  fellows,  as  good  as  they,  lay  for  blocks  behind 
the  fire ;  so  if  we  should  say,  as  it  were,  unto  certain  words. 
Stand  up  higher ;  have  a  place  in  the  Bible  always ;  and  to 
others  of  like  quality.  Get  ye  hence ;  be  banished  forever;  we 
might  be  taxed  peradventure  with  St.  James's  words,  namely, 
'To  be''partial  in  ourselves  and  judges  of  evil  thoughts.'" 

Such  is  their  explanation — to  me,  I  confess,  an  insufiicient 
one,  whatever  ingenuity  may  be  ascribed  to  it ;  and  for  these 

•  reasons  insufiicient.     It  is  clearly  the  office  of  translators  to 

*  put  the  reader  of  the  translation,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  on  the 
same  vantage-ground  as  the  reader  of  the  original ;  to  give 
him,  so  far  as  this  is  attainable,  the  same  assistances  for  un- 
derstanding his  author's  meaning.  Now  every  exact  and  la- 
borious student  of  the  Greek  Testament  knows  that  there  is 
almost  no  such  help  in  some  passage  of  difficulty,  doctrinal 


78         TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

or  other,  as  to  turn  to  his  Greek  Concordance,  to  search  out 
every  other  passage  in  which  the  word  or  words  Avherein  the 
difficulty  seems  chiefly  to  reside,  occur,  and  closely  to  observe 
their  usage  there.  It  is  manifestly  desirable  that  the  reader 
of  the  English  Bible  should  have,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the 
same  resource.  But  if,  where  there  is  one  and  the  same  word 
in  the  original,  there  arc  two,  three,  half  a  dozen  in  the  ver- 
sion, he  is  in  the  main  deprived  of  it.  Thus  he  hears  the  doc- 
trine of  the  atonement  discussed ;  he  would  fain  turn  to  all 
the  passages  where  "atonement"  occurs;  he  finds  only  one 
(Rom.  v.,  11),  and,  of  course,  is  unaware  that  in  other  passages 
where  he  meets  "  reconciling"  and  "  reconciliation"  (Rom.  xi., 
15  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  18, 19)  it  is  the  same  word  in  the  original.  In 
words  like  this,  which  are,  so  to  speak,  secies  doctrinm,  one  re- 
grets, above  all,  variation  and  uncertainty  in  rendering. 

I  confess  that  I  would  fain  sec  more  even  than  this — not 
merely  that  each  word  in  one  language  should  have  its  fixed 
and  recognized  equivalent  in  the  other,  not  to  be  exchanged 
for  any  other  unless  on  the  clearest  necessity  and  in  excep- 
tional cases ;  but  it  would  be  further  desirable  that  where 
words  had  budded,  and  other  words  groAvn  out  of  them — Kvpi- 
oTTjg,  for  example,  out  of  Kvpioc — in  such  a  case,  if  Kvpioc  had 
been  rendered  "  lord,"  then  Kvpiorrjg  should  be  "  lordship,"  and 
not  "  dominion ;"  that  if  diKaiog  is  "  righteous,"  liKmoavvr]  shall 
be  "righteousness" — if,  on  the  other  hand,  liicaioQ  is  "just," 
then  let  CLKmouvvri  be  "justice ;"  that,  in  fact,  not  merely  word 
should  answer  word,  but  family  should  corresjDond  to  family. 
It  is  much,  indeed,  that  we  here  demand,  and  we  only  de- 
mand it  as  an  ideal  toward  which  the  nearest  attainable  ap- 
proach should  be  made,  being,  as  it  is,  probably  far  more  than 
a7iy  language  could  render,  certainly  far  more  than  our  own. 
A  circumstance  which,  in  many  aspects,  constitutes  our  rich- 
es, namely,  that  the  English  language  has  two  factors,  a  Pe- 
lasgic  and  a  Gothic,  and  that  thus  we  have  often  duplicate 
words  where  other  languages — the  German,  for  example — 
have  but  a  single  one,  as  "just"  and  "justice"  side  by  side 


6»-V  S02fE  UXXECESSARY  DISTIXCTIOXS  INTRODUCED.       ^9 

with  "  righteous"  and  "  righteousness,"  or,  still  more  remark- 
ably, "  saint,"  "  saintly,"  "  sanctify,"  "  sanctification,"  "  sanc- 
tity," over  against  "holy  one,"  "holy,"  "hallow,"  "hallow- 
ing," "  holiness :"  this  circumstance,  in  some  of  the  conse- 
quences which  have  followed  from  it,  works  often  injuriously 
so  far  as  the  fulfilling  our  present  demand  is  concerned.  The 
consequences  I  refer  to  are  these,  namely,  that,  as  continual- 
ly will  happen,  neither  group  is  complete,  some  words  having 
drojDped  out  from  each,  and  only  between  them  and  by  their 
joint  contributions  the  whole  body  of  needful  words  is  made 
np.  For  instance,  our  translators  use  often  "  righteous"  for 
StVatoc,  and  always,  I  believe,  "  righteousness"  for  liKaioavvr]. 
But  they  have  presently  to  deal  with  oiKaiow  and  ciKaiwrnc. 
There  are  gaps  here  in  our  Saxon  grouj^ ;  no  help  to  be  found 
in  that  quarter — no  choice,  therefore,  but  to  take  up  with  the 
Latin,  "to  justify,"  and  "justification,"  and  this,  jnoreover, 
Avith  the  certainty  that  the  etymology  of  "  justificare,"  the 
word  wliicli  they  were  comj^elled  to  use  ("justum/acere"), 
would  be  turned  against  that  truth  which  they  most  loved  to 
assert,  and  which  cikuiovv  did  itself  so  plainly  declare.  Then, 
too,  while  ■Kia-iq  is  "  faith,"  and  Trtoroe  "  faithful,"  when  we 
reach  TTLa-eveiv  tliere  is  no  proceeding  further  in  this  line :  we 
betake  ourselves  perforce  to  "  believe,"  a  Avord  excellent  in 
itself,  but  Avith  the  serious  drawback  that  it  belongs  to  quite 
another  family,  and  stands  in  no  connection  Avith  "  faith"  and 
"  faithful"  at  all.  Observe,  for  examjDle,  hoAV  through  this  the 
loop  and  link  connecting  the  great  eleventh  chapter  of  the 
Hebrews  with  the  last  verse  of  the  chapter  preceding  has 
been  dropped  in  our  version,  and  the  most  natural  transition 
obscured. 

But,  without  pressing  this  farther,  and  returning  to  the 
main  proposition  of  this  chapter,  which  is,  that  a  Greek  Avord 
I  should  have,  so  far  as  possible,  its  fixed  and  unchanged  rep- 
resentative in  English,  the  losses  which  ensue  from  the  neg- 
lect or  the  non-recognition  of  this  rule  may  be  shown  to  be 
considerable.     Thus  it  Avill  sometimes  happen  that  when  St. 


80         TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Paul  is  pursuing  a  close  train  of  reasoning,  and  one  which  de- 
mands severest  attention,  the  difficulties  of  his  argument,  not 
small  in  themselves,  are  aggravated  by  the  use  ou  the  trans- 
lators' part  of  different  words  where  he  has  used  the  same, 
the  word  being  sometimes  the  very  key  to  the  whole  argu- 
ment. It  is  thus  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  Romans.  Ao- 
yi'Cojmi  occurs  eleven  times  in  this  chajDter.  We  may  say 
that  it  is  the  key-word  to  St.  Paul's  argument  throughout,  be- 
ing every  where  employed  most  strictly  in  the  same,  and  that 
a  technical  and  theological,  sense.  But  our  translators  have 
no  fixed  rule  of  rendering  it.  Twice  they  render  it  "  count" 
(ver.  3,  5) ;  six  times  "  impute"  (ver.  G,  8, 11, 22,  23,  24) ;  and 
three  times  "  reckon"  (ver.  4,  9, 10)  ;  while  at  Gal.  iii.,  6  they 
introduce  a  fourth  rendering,  "  account."  Let  the  student 
read  this  chapter,  employing  every  where  "  reckon,"  or,  which 
would  be  better,  every  where  "impute,"  and  observe  how 
much  of  clearness  and  precision  St.  Paul's  argument  would  in 
this  way  acquire. 

In  other  places  no  doctrine  is  in  danger  of  being  obscured, 
but  still  the  change  is  uncalled  for  and  sometimes  perplex- 
ing. Thus  what  confusion  arises  from  turning  apvcraog,  Avhich 
in  the  Revelation  is  always  translated  "  the  bottomless  pit" 
(ix.,1, 2,11,  and  often), into  "the  deep"  (Luke  v iii.,  31);  above 
all,  when  this  "  deep,"  which  it  needs  not  to  say  is  the  ^uXao; 
— that  forlorn  province  of  the  Hades-world  which  is  the  re- 
ceptacle of  lost  spirits — is  so  liable,  as  it  is  here,  to  be  con- 
founded with  "  the  lake"  ("  the  sea,"  Matt,  viii.,  32),  men- 
tioned immediately  after. 

Or  in  other  ways  the  variation  is  injurious.  Take,  for  in- 
stance. Rev.  iv.,  4  :  "And  round  about  the  throne  (dpovov) 
were  four-and-twenty  seats^^  (dpoyoi).  It  is  easy  to  see  the 
motive  of  this  variation  ;  and  yet,  if  the  inspired  apostle  was 
visited  with  no  misgivings  lest  the  creature  should  seem  to 
be  encroaching  on  the  dignity  of  the  Creator,  and  it  is  clear 
that  he  was  not — on  the  contrary,  he  has,  in  the  most  marked 
manner,  brought  the  throne  of  God  and  the  thrones  of  the 


Oy  SOME  UXXECESSAR  Y  DISTIXCTIOXS  IXTR  OD  TIC  ED.     g  1 

cklers  together — certainly  the  translators  need  not  have  been 
more  careful  than  he  had  been,  nor  made  the  elders  to  sit  on 
"  seats,"  and  only  God  on  a  "  throne."  This  august  company 
of  the  four-and-twenty  elders  rej^resents  the  Church  of  the 
Old  and  the  ISTew  Testament,  each  in  its  twelve  heads ;  but 
bow  much  is  lost  by  turning  their  "  thrones"  into  "  seats ;" 
for  example,  the  connection  of  this  Scripture  with  Matt,  xix., 
28,  and  with  all  the  promises  that  Christ's  servants  should 
not  merely  see  his  glory,  but  share  it,  that  they  should  be 
aurOpoi'oi  with  him  (Rev.  iii.,  21),  this  little  change  obscuring 
the  truth  that  they  are  here  set  before  us  as  avfxftamXiijovTeQ 
(1  Cor.  iv.,  8;  2  Tim.  ii.,  12),  as  kings  reigning  with  him. 
This  truth  is  saved,  indeed,  by  the  mention  of  the  golden 
crowns  on  their  heads,  but  is  implied  also  in  their  sitting,  as 
they  do  in  the  Greek,  but  not  in  the  English,  on  seats  of  equal 
dignity  with  his,  on  "thrones."  The  same  scruple  which  dic- 
tated this  change  makes  itself  felt  through  the  whole  transla- 
tion of  the  AjDocalypse,  and  to  a  manifest  loss.  In  that  book 
is  set  forth,  as  nowhere  else  in  Scripture,  the  hellish  parody 
of  the  heavenly  kingdom ;  the  conflict  between  the  true  King 
of  the  earth  and  the  usurping  king ;  the  loss,  therefore,  is  evi- 
dent when  for  "  Satan's  throne^''  is  substituted  "  Satan's  sea<" 
(ii.,  13) ;  for  "  the  throne  of  the  beast,"  "  the  seat  of  the  beast" 
(xvi.  10). 

A  great  master  of  language  will  often  implicitly  refer  in 
some  word  which  he  uses  to  the  same  word,  or,  it  may  be,  to 
another  of  the  same  group  or  family,  which  he  or  some  one 
else  has  just  used  before;  and  where  there  is  evidently  in- 
tended such  an  allusion,  it  should,  wherever  this  is  possible, 
be  reproduced  in  the  translation.  There  are  two  examples 
of  this  in  St.  Paul's  discourse  at  Athens,  both  of  which  have 
been  effaced  in  our  version.  Of  those  who  encountered  Paul 
in  the  market  at  Athens,  some  said, "  He  seemeth  to  be  a  set- 
ter forth  of  strange  gods"  (Acts  xvii.,18).  They  use  the 
word  KarayyiKivt'')  and  he,  remembering  and  taking  up  this 
word,  retorts  it  upon  them :  "  Whom,  therefore,  ye  ignorant- 


82         TREXCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

ly  ■worship,  him  declare  I  unto  you"  (ver.  23) ;  so  our  trans- 
lators ;  but  better,  "  Him  set  I  forth  {KaTayyiWu))  unto  you." 
He  has  their  charge  present  in  his  mind,  and  this  is  his  an- 
swer to  their  charge.  It  would  more  plainly  appear  such  to 
the  English  reader  if  the  translators,  having  used  "  setter 
forth"  before,  had  thus  returned  upon  the  word,  instead  of 
substituting,  as  they  have  done, "  declare"  for  it.  The  Rheims 
Version,  which  has  "  preacher"  and  "  preach,"  after  "  annun- 
tiator"  and  "  annuntio"  of  the  Vulgate,  has  been  careful  to  re- 
tain and  indicate  the  connection. 

But  the  finer  and  more  delicate  turns  of  the  divine  rhetoric 
of  St.  Paul  arc  more  seriously  afiected  by  another  oversight 
in  the  same  verse.  We  make  him  there  say, "  As  I  passed 
by,  and  beheld  your  devotions,  I  found  an  altar  with  this  in- 
scription. To  the  Unknown  God  (ayt'OMrrw  0ew).  Whom,  there- 
fore, ye  ignorantly  {ayvoovvTEo)  worship,  him  declare  I  unto 
you."  But  if  any  thing  is  clear,  it  is  that  St,  Paul  in  ayroovv- 
TEQ  intends  to  take  up  the  preceding  ayjwcr-w ;  the  chime  of 
the  words,  and  also,  probably,  the  fact  of  their  etymological 
connection,  leading  him  to  this.  He  has  spoken  of  their  altar 
to  an  "  TInhnoxcn  God,"  and  he  proceeds,  "  whom,  therefore, 
ye  worship  unknowing^  him  declare  I  unto  you."  "  Igno- 
rantly" has  the  further  objection  that  it  conveys  more  of  re- 
buke than  St. Paul,  who  is  sparing  his  hearers  to  the  utter- 
most, intended. 

In  other  passages,  also,  the  point  of  a  sentence  lies  in  the 
recurrence  and  repetition  of  the  same  word,  which  yet  they 
have  failed  to  repeat,  as  in  these  which  follow : 

1  Cor.  iii.,17. — "If  any  man  defile  {(pdeipei)  the  temple  of 
God,  him  shall  God  destroy/  {cpdepei).^^  It  is  the  fearful  law  of 
retaliation  which  is  here  proclaimed.  He  who  rui?is  shall 
himself  be  rumed  in  turn.  It  shall  be  done  to  him  as  he  has 
done  to  the  temple  of  God.  Undoubtedly  it  is  hard  to  get 
the  right  word  which  will  suit  in  both  places.  "  Corrupt" 
is  the  first  which  suggests  itself;  yet  it  would  not  do  to  say, 
"If  any  man  corrupt  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall  God  cor- 


Olf^  SOME  UNNECESSAR  T  DISTINCTIONS  IXTE  OD  TJCED.     g  3 

ruptP  The  difficulty  which  our  translators  felt,  it  is  evident 
that  the  Vulgate  felt  the  same,  which  in  like  manner  has 
changed  its  word :  "  Si  quis  autem  templum  Dei  violaverit, 
disperdet  ilium  Deus."  Yet  why  should  not  the  verse  be  ren- 
dered, "  If  any  man  destroy  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall  God 
destroy?'''' 

•  Matt,  xxi.,  41. — "He  will  miserably  destroy  those  wicked 
men."     A  difficulty  of  exactly  the  same  kind  exists  here, 

s  whei'e  yet  the  caraOc  /.actDg  of  the  original  ought,  in  some  way 
or  other,  to  have  been  preserved,  as  in  this  way  it  might  very 
sufficiently  be:  "He  will  miserably  destroy  those  miserable 
men;"  their  doom  shall  correspond  to  their  condition;  as 
this  is,  so  shall  be  that.  Neither  would  it  have  been  hard  at 
2  Thess.  i.,  6,  to  retain  the  play  upon  words,  and  to  have  ren- 
dered rote  dXi(3ovaiy  vfxdg  dXlxpiy, "  affliction  to  them  that  afflict 
you,"  instead  oi'"''  tribulation  to  them  that  troidile  you,"  there 
being  no  connection  in  English  between  the  words  "  tribula- 
tion" and  "  trouble,"  though  some  likeness  in  sound ;  while 
yet  the  very  purpose  of  the  passage  is  to  show  that  what 
wicked  men  have  measured  to  others  shall  be  measured  to 
them  again. 

Let  me  indicate  other  exam^jles  of  the  same  kind  where 
the  loss  is  manifest.     Who  can  doubt  that  the  iKavuatv  of  2 

0  Cor.  iii.,  6  is  an  echo  of  'iKavoi  and  k-a^oVjjc  of  the  verse  pre- 
ceding ?  With  the  assistance  of  "  able"  and  "  ability,"  or 
"  ableness,"  as  Tyndale  has  it,  or  else  with  "  sufficient"  and 
"  sufficiency,"  it  would  have  been  easy  to  let  this  echo  be 
heard  in  the  English  no  less  than  in  the  Greek.     Again,  if  at 

L  Gal.  iii.,  22,  awiKkuatv  is  translated  "  hath  concluded,"  avy- 
K\£i6fievoi  in  the  next  verse,  which  takes  it  up,  should  not  be 
rendered  "  shut  up."  The  Vulgate  has  well "  conclusit"  and 
"  conclusi."  Let  the  reader  substitute  "  hath  shut  up"  for 
"  hath  concluded"  in  ver.  22,  and  then  read  the  passage.  He 
will  be  at  once  aware  of  the  gain.  In  like  manner,  let  him 
take  Rom.  vii.,  7,  and  read,  "I  had  not  known  iust  {tTridvfxiai') 
except  the  law  had  said.  Thou  shalt  not  lust  (ouc  lTndvfi{](Teic)  j" 


84        FRENCH  ON  Al'TH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

or  Phil,  ii.,  13,  "It  is  God  which  loorJceth  (6  hepyCjv)  in  you  ■^ 
both  to  will  and  to  loork  {to  tptpyelv),^''  and  the  j)assages  will 
come  out  with  a  strength  and  clearness  which  they  have  not 
now.  Not  otherwise,  if  at  2  Thess.  ii.,  6,  to  kutexoi'  is  reu-  o 
dered  "  what  loithlioldeth^''  b  KaTixwv,  m  the  verse  following, 
should  not  be  "  he  who  letteth.''''  While,  undoubtedly,  there 
is  significance  in  the  impersonal  rb  KaTtypv  exchanged  for  the 
personal  b  KUTiywv,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  refer  to 
one  and  the  same  person  or  institution ;  but  this  is  obscured 
hj  the  change  of  word.  In  like  manner,  one  w^ould  have  glad- 
ly seen  the  connection  between  XEnrd/jEvoi  and  XEiireTai  at  Jam.  ^ 
i.,  4,  5,  reproduced  in  our  version.  "Lacking"  and  "lack," 
which  our  previous  versions  had,  would  have  done  it.  The 
"patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures"  (Rom.  xv.,  4)  is  de- 
rived from  "  the  God  of  patience  and  comforf  (ver.  5) ;  for 
so  one  willingly  would  have  read  it ;  and  not  "  consolation," 
as  it  now  in  this  latter  verse  stands,  causing  a  slight  obscura- 
tion of  the  connection  between  the  "  comfort"  and  God,  the 
Author  of  the  "comfort."  Our  version  at  2  Cor.  i.,  3-7  veers 
in  the  same  way  needlessly  backward  and  forward,  rendering 
7rapaK\T](Tig  four  times  by  "  consolation,"  and  twice  by  "  com- 
fort." 

How  many  readers  have  read  in  the  English  the  third 
chapter  of  St.  John,  and  missed  the  remarkable  connection 
between  our  Lord's  words  at  ver.  11,  and  the  Baptist's  tak- 
ing up  of  those  words  at  ver.  32 ;  and  this  because  fiapTvpia 
is  translated  "  witness"  on  the  former  occasion,  and  "  testi- 
mony" on  the  latter.  Why,  again,  we  may  ask,  should  v/Spcc 
Kal  ^rifiia  be  "hurt  and  damage"  at  Acts  xxvii.,  10,  and  "harm 
and  loss"  at  their  recurrence,  ver.  21  ?  Both  versions  are 
good,  and  it  would  not  much  import  which  had  been  select- 
ed ;  but  whichever  had  been  employed  on  the  first  occasion 
ought  also  to  have  been  employed  on  the  second.  St.  Paul, 
repeating  in  the  midst  of  the  danger  the  very  words  which 
he  had  used  when  counseling  his  fellow  voyagers  how  they 
might  avoid  that  danger,  would  remind  them,  that  so  he 


ON  SOME  UNNECFSSAIi  Y  DISTINCTIONS  INTROD  UCED.      85 

might  obtain  a  readier  hearing  now,  of  that  neglected  warn- 
ing of  his,  which  the  sequel  had  only  justified  too  well. 

Of  these  and  some  other  examples  in  the  like  kind  which 
I  shall  ofier  before  leaving  this  part  of  the  subject,  some  are 
so  little  significant  that  they  might  well  be  passed  by,  if  any 
thing  could  be  counted  wholly  insignificant  which  helps  or 
hinders  ever  so  little  the  more  exact  setting  forth  of  the 
Word  of  God.  Thus,  if  in  the  parable  of  the  Laborers  in  the 
0  Vineyard  (Matt,  xx.,  1),  okoBcffTrorTjc  is  "householder"  at  ver. 
-  l,it  should  scarcely  be  "goodman  of  the  house"  at  ver,  11.* 
As  little  should  the  '■^governor  of  the  feast"  of  John  ii,,  8,  be 
the  ^^ rider  of  the  feast"  in  the  very  next  verse ;  or  the  "good- 
ly apparel"  of  James  ii.,  2,  be  the  "  gay  clothing"  of  the  verse 
following,  the  words  of  the  original  in  each  case  remaining 
unchanged.  Then  why  should  not  XafXTrei  and  Xan^paru)  (Matt, 
v.,  15, 16)  reappear  in  our  version  in  the  intimate  relation 
wherein  the  Lord  evidently  means  them  to  stand?  Seeing, 
too,  that  he  is  especially  urging  the  mercy  which  they  who 
liave  found  mercy  are  bound  in  return  to  show,  that  here  is 
the  very  point  of  the  reproach  which  the  king  addresses  to 
^  the  unmerciful  servant  (Matt,  xviii.,  33),  eXeelp  ought  either 
to  have  been  translated  "  have  2^'^iy^^  or  else  "  have  compas- 
sion''^ in  both  clauses  of  the  verse,  but  not  first  by  one  phrase, 
then  by  the  other. 

Again,  it  would  have  been  clearly  desirable  that  where  in 
two,  sometimes  it  is  in  three.  Gospels  exactly  the  same  words, 

*  Scholefield  (Hints,  p.  8)  further  objects  to  this  last  rendering  as  having 
' '  a  quaintness  in  it  not  calculated  to  recommend  it. "  But  it  had  nothing  of 
the  kind  at  the  time  our  translation  was  made.  Compare  Spenser,  Faery 
Queen,  iv.,  5,  34: 

"There  entering  in,  they  found  the  goodman  self 
Full  busily  upon  his  work  ybent." 

And  still  more  to  the  point,  in  Holland's  Plutarch,  p.  200  :  "Finding  by  good 
fortune  the  good  man  of  the  house  within,  [he]  asked  for  bread  and  water." 
So  in  Golding's  Ovid,  b.  i.  : 

"  The  goodman  seeks  the  goodwive's  death ;" 
this  last  quotation  showing  how  entirely  all  ethical  sense  had  departed  from 
the  word,  as  now  from  the  French  "  bonhomme." 


86         TREXCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

recording  the  same  event  or  the  same  conversation,  occur  in 
the  original,  the  identity  should  have  been  expressed  by  the 
use  of  exactly  the  same  words  in  the  English.  This  continu- 
ally is  not  the  case.  Thus,  Matt,  xxvi.,  41,  and  Mark  xiv., 
38,  exactly  correspond  in  the  Greek,  Avhile  in  the  translation 
the  words  appear  in  St. Matthew :  "Watch  and  pray,  that  ye 
enter  not  into  temptation ;  the  spirit  indeed  is  icillmg,  but 
the  flesh  is  weak ;"  in  St.  Mark :  "  Watch  ye  and  pray,  lest  ye 
enter  into  temptation ;  the  spirit  truly  is  ready.,  but  the  flesh 
is  weak."  Again,  the  words  Matt,  xix.,  20,  and  Mark  x.,  20, 
exactly  agree  in  the  original ;  they  are  far  from  doing  so  in 
our  version  :  in  St.  Matthew :  "  All  these  things  have  I  k€2)t 
from  my  youth  iqo  f*  in  St.Mark:  "All  these  have  I  observed 
from  my  youth."  So,  too, "  Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee,"  of 
Luke  vii.,  50,  represents  exactly  the  same  words  as  "  Thy 
faith  hath  made  thee  lohole^''  of  Luke  xvii.,19:  and  compare 
Matt.  XX.,  16  with  xxii.,  14. 

It  may  seem  a  mere  trifle  that  l^iivr]  hp^aTirr)  is  "  a  leathern 
girdle"  in  St.  Matthew  (iii.,4),  and  "  a  girdle  of  a  skin"  in  the 
parallel  passage  of  St.  Mark  (i.,  6) ;  yet,  not  to  urge  the  pure- 
ly gratuitous  character  of  this  and  similar  variations,  it  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  through  them  a  most  interesting  ques- 
tion, oj^ening  into  boundless  fields  of  inquiry,  namely,  the  ex- 
act relation  of  the  four  several  Gospels  to  one  another,  and 
the  extent  to  which  one  sacred  writer  may  have  availed  him- 
self of  the  work  of  a  predecessor,  is  entirely  foreclosed  to  the 
English  reader.  "  There  is  no  reason,"  it  has  been  well  said, 
"  why  such  interesting  discussions  as  those  contained  in  Mi- 
chaelis,  and  the  notes  of  his  learned  translator  and  commen- 
tator, Bishop  Marsh,  with  reference  to  the  correspondence, 
verbal  or  substantial,  and  also  to  the  variances,  of  the  diifer- 
ent  Gospel  narratives,  should  not  be  as  open  to  an  English 
reader  as  to  the  Greek  scholar.  While  the  harmony  of  many 
passages,  common  to  two  or  more  evangelists,  whether,  as  in 
some  cases,  it  be  perfect,  or,  as  in  others,  only  substantial, 
bears  in  so  intei'esting  a  manner  on  the  questions  involved 


ox  SOME  JINXECESSAR  Y  DISTINCTIONS  INTEOD  UCED.     g  7 

in  the  discussions  alluded  to,  our  version  seems  based  on  a 
studied  design  to  confound  and  mislead  as  to  the  actual 
facts." 

Xot  otherwise,  in  a  quotation  from  the  Old  Testament,  if 
two  or  more  sacred  writers  quote  it  in  absolutely  identical 
words,  this  fact  ought  to  be  reproduced  in  the  version.  It 
is  not  so  in  respect  of  the  important  quotation  from  Gen.  xv., 
6  ;  but  on  the  three  occasions  that  it  is  quoted  (Rom.  iv.,  3 ; 
Gal.  iii.,  G  ;  James  ii.,  23),  it  appears  with  variations,  slight, 
indeed,  and  not  in  the  least  affecting  the  sense,  but  yet  which 
would  better  have  been  avoided.  Again,  the  phrase  do-p) 
tuwct'ac,  occurring  tAvicc  in  the  Xew  Testament,  has  so  fixed, 
I  may  say,  so  technical  a  significance,  referring  as  it  does  to 
a  continually  recurring  phrase  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  it 
should  not  be  rendered  on  one  occasion  "a  sweet-smelling 
savor"  (Eph.  v.,  2),  on  the  other  "  an  odor  of  a  sweet  smell" 
(Phil,  iv.,  18). 

In  other  ways  interesting  and  important  relations  between 
different  parts  of  Scripture  Avould  come  out  more  strongly  if 
what  is  precisely  similar  in  the  original  had  reappeared  as 
precisely  similar  in  the  translation.  The  Epistles  to  the 
Ephesians  and  to  the  Colossians  profess  to  have  been  sent 
from  Rome  to  the  East  by  the  same  messenger  (comp.  Eph.  vi., 
21,  22  ;  Col.  iv.,  7,  8) ;  they  were  Avritteu,  therefore,  we  may 
confidently  conclude,  about  the  same  time.  "When  we  come 
to  examine  their  internal  structure,  this  exactly  bears  out 
what  under  such  circumstances  we  should  expect  in  letters 
proceeding  from  the  pen  of  St.  Paul — great  differences,  but 
at  the  same  time  remarkable  points  of  contact  and  resem- 
blance, both  in  the  thoughts  and  in  the  words  which  are  the 
garment  of  the  thoughts.  Paley  has  urged  this  as  an  inter- 
nal evidence  for  the  truth  of  those  statements  which  these 
epistles  make  about  themselves.*  This  internal  evidence  to 
w'hich  he  appeals  doubtless  exists  even  now  for  the  English 
reader,  but  it  would  press  itself  on  his  attention  much  more 
*  Horoe  Paulina,  vi. ,  §  2. 


88         TRENCH  OX  A  UTH.  V£KSIOX  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

strongly  if  the  exact  resemblances  in  the  originals  had  been 
represented  by  exact  resemblances  in  the  copies.  This  often- 
times has  not  been  the  case.  Striking  coincidences  in  lan- 
guage between  one  epistle  and  the  other,  which  exist  in  the 
Greek,  do  not  exist  in  the  English.  For  example,  Ivepyeia 
is  "  working,"  Eph.  i.,  19 ;  it  is  "  operation,"  Col.  ii.,  12  :  rawe- 
ivo(j>po(Tvyr)  is  "  lowliness,"  Eph,  iv.,  2 ;  "  humbleness  of  mind," 
Col.  iii.,  1 2 :  (Tvii(ii(ja^6fXEvov  is  "  compacted,"  Eph.  iv.,  16 ;  "  knit 
//  together,"  Col.  iii.,  19  ;  Avith  much  more  of  the  same  kind;  as 
is  accurately  brought  out  by  the  late  Professor  Blunt,*  who 
draws  one  of  the  chief  motives  why  the  clergy  should  study 
the  Scriptures  in  the  original  languages  from  the  shortcom- 
ings which  exist  in  the  translations  of  them. 

Before  leaving  this  branch  of  the  subject,!  will  take  a  few 
words,  and  note  the  variety  of  rendering  to  which  they  are 
submitted  in  our  version.  I  have  not  taken  them  altogether 
at  random,  yet  some  of  these  are  by  no  means  the  most  re- 
markable instances  in  their  kind.  They  will,  however,  suffi- 
ciently illustrate  the  matter  in  hand. 

'A0£rew,  "  to  reject"  (Mark  vi.,  26) ;  "  to  despise"  (Luke  x., 
16) ;  "to  bring  to  nothing"  (1  Cor.  i.,  19) ;  "  to  frustrate"  (Gal. 
ii.,  21) ;  "  to  disannul"  (Gal.  iii.,  15) ;  "  to  cast  off"  (1  Tim.  v., 
12). 

'Avaorrarow, "  to  turn  upside  down"  (Acts  xvii.,  6) ;  "to  make 
an  uproar"  (Acts  xxi.,  38) ;  "  to  trouble"  (Gal.  v.,  12). 

' AiroKokuT^iQ,  "  revelation"  (Rom.  ii.,  5) ;  "  manifestation" 
(Rom.  viii.,  19) ;  "  coming"  (l  Cor.  i.,  1) ;  "  appearing"  (1  Pet. 
i.,  1). 

AfXta^w,  "to  entice"  (James  i.,  14) ;  "to  beguile"  (2  Pet.  ii., 
14) ;  "to  allure"  (2  Pet.  ii.,  18). 

'E\£'yx<^5  "to  tell  of  [his]  trespass"  (Matt,  xviii.,  15);  "to 
reprove"  (John  xvi.,  8) ;  "to  convict"  (John  viii.,  9);  "to  con- 
vince" (John  viii.,  46) ;  "  to  rebuke"  (1  Tim.  v.,  20). 

Zo^oc,  "darkness"  (2  Pet.  ii.,  4);   "mist"  (2  Pet.  ii.,  17); 

"blackness"  (Jude  13). 

*  Duties  of  the  Parish  Priest,  p.  71.  The  whole  section  (p.  47-76)  is  em- 
inently instructive. 


ox  SOME  UNNECESSAR  T  DISTINCTIONS  INTR  OD  UCEB.       g  9 

Karapyt'w,  "to  cumber"  (Luke.xiii.,  7);  "to  make  without 
effect"  (Rom.  iii.,  3) ;  " to  make  void"  (Romt  iii.,  31) ;  "to  make 
of  none  effect"  (Rom.  iv.,  14) ;  "to  destroy"  (Rom.  vi.,  6) ;  "to 
loose"  (Rom.  vii.,  2) ;  "  to  deliver"  (Rom.  vii.,  6) ;  "  to  bring 
to  naught"  (1  Cor.  i.,  18) ;  "  to  do  away"  (1  Cor!  xiii.,  10) ;  "to 
put  away"  (1  Cor.  xiii.,  11) ;  "  to  put  down"  (1  Cor.'xv.,  24) ; 
"to  abolish"  (2  Cor.  iii.,  13).  Add  to  these,  Karapye'o/xat,  " to 
come  to  naught"  (1  Con  ii.,  6) ;  "  to  fail"  (1  Cor.  xiii.,  8) ;  "  to 
vanish  away"  (ibid.) ;  "  to  become  of  none  effect"  (Gal.  v.,  4) ; 
"to  cease"  (Gal.  v.,  11);  and  we  have  here  seventeen  different 
renderings  of  this  word,  occurring  in  all  twenty-seven  times 
in  the  New  Testament. 

Karapr/^w,  "to  mend"  (Matt,  iv.,  21);  "to  perfect"  (Mattl'^ 
xxi.,  16) ;  "  to  fit"  (Rom.  ix.,  22) ;  "  to  perfectly  join  together" 
(1  Cor.  i.,  10);  "to  restore"  (Gali'vi.,  1) ;  "to  prepare"  (Heb. 
X.,  5) ;  "  to  frame"  (Heb:  xi.,  3) ;  "  to  make  perfect"  (Heb.  xiii., 

21). 

Kavxao^at,  "to  make  boast"  (Rom.  ii,,  17);  "to  rejoice" 
(Rom.^v.,  2) ;  "to  glory"  (Rom!  v.,  3) ;  "  to  joy"  (Rom.  v.,  11) ; 
"  to  boast"  (2  Coi'.  vii.,  14). 

Kparcw,  "  to  take"  (Matt,  ix.,  25) ;  "  to  lay  hold  on"  (Matt, 
xii.,  11) ;  "  to  lay  hands  on"  (Matt,  xviii.,  28) ;  "  to  hold  fast" 
(Matt,  xxvi.,  48) ;  "  to  hold"  (Matt."  xxviii.,  9) ;  "  to  keep" 
(Mark  ix.,  10) ;  "  to  retain"  (John  xx.,  23) ;  "  to  obtain"  (Acts 
xxvii.,  13). 

Ilapa/caXew,  "to  comfort"  (Matt,  ii.,  18);  "to  beseech"  (Matt, 
viii.,  5) ;  "to  desire"  (Matt,  xviii.,  32) ;  "to  pray"  (Matt;  xxvi., 
53) ;  "  to  entreat"  (Luke  x v.,  28) ;  "  to  exhort"  (Acts  ii.,  40) ; 
"to  call  for"  (Acts'xxviii., 20). 

Ilarpta,  "lineage"  (Luke^  ii.,  4) ;  "kindred"  (Acts' iii.,  25) ; 
"family"  (Ephes.  iii.,15). 

Let  me  once  more  observe,  in  leaving  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject, that  I  would  not  for  an  instant  imply  that  in  all  these 
places  one  and  the  same  English  word  could  have  been  em- 
ployed,but  only  that  the  variety  might  have  been  much  small- 
er than  it  actually  is. 


90         TEEFCH  ON  A  JJTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

ON   SOME    REAL  DISTINCTIONS   EFFACED, 

If  it  is  impossible,  as  has  been  shown  already,  in  every  case 
to  render  one  word  in  the  original  by  one  word,  constantly 
employed,  in  the  translation,  equally  impossible  is  it,  as  was 
shown  at  the  same  time,  to  render  in  every  case  different 
words  in  the  original  by  different  words  in  the  translation ; 
it  continually  happening  that  one  language  jjossesses,  and 
fixes  in  words,  distinctions  of  which  another  takes  no  note. 
But,  with  the  freest  recognition  of  this,  the  forces  and  capac- 
ities of  a  language  should  be  stretched  to  the  uttermost,  the 
riches  of  its  synonyms  thoroughly  searched  out ;.  and  not  till 
this  is  done,  not  till  its  resources  prove  plainly  insufficient  to 
the  task,  ought  translators  to  acquiesce  in  the  disappearance 
from  their  copy  of  distinctions  which  existed  in  the  original 
from  which  that  copy  was  made,  or  to  count  that,  notwith- 
standing this  disappearance,  they  have  accomplished  all  that 
lay  on  them  to  accomplish.  More  might  assuredly  have  been 
here  done  than  has  by  our  translators  been  attempted,  as  I 
will  endeavor  by  a  few  examples  to  prove. 

Thus  one  must  always  regret,  and  the  regret  has  been  oft- 
en expressed — it  was  so  by  Broughton  almost  as  soon  as  our 
version  was  published* — that  in  the  Apocalypse  our  transla- 
tors should  have  rendered  QT}piov  and  ^ibov  by  the  same  word, 
"  beast."  Both  play  important  parts  in  the  book ;  both  be- 
long to  its  higher  symbolism,  but  to  portions  the  most  differ- 
ent. The  i^wa,  or  "  living  creatures,"  which  stand  before  the 
throne,  in  which  dwells  the  fullness  of  all  creaturely  life,  as  it 

*  Of  the  4wa,  or  "wights,"  as  he  and  other  of  our  early  divines  called 
them, he  says, in  language  hardly  too  strong, "they  are  barbarously  translated 
beasts." — Works,  p.  G39. 


02^  SOME  REAL  DISTINCTIOXS  EFFA  CED.  9 1 

gives  praise  and  glory  to  God  (iv.,  6,  7, 8, 9 ;  v.,  6  ;  vi.,  1 ;  and 
often),  form  part  of  the  heavenly  symbolism ;  the  0r?p/a,  the 
first  beast  and  the  second,  which  rise  np,  one  from  the  bot- 
tomless pit  (xi.,  7),  the  other  from  the  sea  (xiii.,  1),  of  Avhicli 
the  one  makes  war  upon  the  two  witnesses,  the  other  opens 
his  mouth  in  blasphemies,  these  form  part  of  the  hellish  sym- 
bolism. To  confound  these  and  those  under  a  common  des- 
ignation, to  call  those  "  beasts"  and  these  "  beasts,"  would  be 
an  oversight,  even  granting  the  name  to  be  suitable  to  both ; 
it  is  a  most  serious  one  when  the  word  used, bringing  out,  as 
this  must,  the  predominance  of  the  lower  animal  life,  is  ap- 
plied to  glorious  creatures  in  the  very  court  and  presence  of 
Heaven.  The  error  is  common  to  all  the  translations.  That 
the  Rheims  should  not  have  escaped  it  is  strange;  for  the 
Vulgate  renders  ^wa  by  "animalia"  ("animantia"  would  have 
been  still  better),  and  only  Qr^piov  by  "  bestia."  If  ^wa  had  al- 
ways been  rendered  "  living  creatures,"  this  would  have  had 
the  additional  advantage  of  setting  these  symbols  of  the 
Apocalypse,  even  for  the  English  reader,  in  an  unmistakable 
connection  with  Ezek.  i.,5, 13, 14,  and  often;  where  "living 
creature"  is  the  rendering  in  our  English  Version  of  n^n,  as 
!^u)ov  is  in  the  Septuagint. 

Matt,  xxii.,  1-14. — In  this  parable  of  the  Marriage  of  the 
King's  Son,  the  lovXoi  who  summon  the  bidden  guests  (ver.  3, 
4),  and  the  Iiukovoi  who  in  the  end  expel  the  unworthy  intru- 
der (ver.  13),  should  not  have  been  confounded  under  the 
common  name  of  "  servants."  A  real  and  important  distinc- 
tion between  the  several  actors  in  the  parable  is  in  this  way 
obliterated.  The  ZoiXoi  are  me72,  the  ambassadors  of  Christ, 
those  that  invite  their  fellow -men  to  the  blessings  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven ;  but  the  ItaKovoi  are  angels^  those  that 
"  stand  by"  (Luke  xix.,  24),  ready  to  fulfill  the  divine  judg- 
ments, and  whom  we  ever  find  the  executors  of  these  judg- 
ments in  the  day  of  Christ's  appearing.  They  are  as  distinct 
from  one  another  as  the  "  servants  of  the  householder,"  who 
in  like  manner  are  men,  and  the  "  reapers,"  who  are  angels, 

Y 


92  TRENCH  OX  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

ill  the  parable  of  the  Tares  (Matt,  xiii.,  27,  30).  The  distinc- 
tion which  we  have  lost  the  Vulgate  has  preserved;  the  lovXoi 
are  "  servi,"  the  Iicikovol  "  ministri ;"  and  all  our  early  transla- 
tions in  like  manner  rendered  the  words  severally  by  "  serv- 
ants" and  "  ministers,"  the  Rheims  by  "  servants"  and  "  wait- 
ers."* 

There  is  a  very  real  distinction  between  cnrKrria  and  aTrei- 
deia.  It  is  often  urged  by  our  elder  divines,  as  by  Jackson 
in  more  passages  than  one,  but  it  is  not  constantly  observed 
by  our  translators.  'AirKj-ia  is,  I  believe,  always  and  rightly 
rendered  "  unbelief,"  while  inrddeia  is  in  most  cases  rendered, 
and  rightly,  "disobedience ;"  perhaps  "contumacy"  would  still 
better  have  expressed  the  positive  active  character  which  in 
it  is  implied ;  but  on  two  occasions  (Heb.  iv.,  6, 11)  it  also  is 
translated  "unbelief."  In  like  manner,  cnriaTtlv  is  properly 
"to  refuse  belief^''  a-KtiQdv  "to  refuse  obedience  f  but  u-kuQCiv 
is  often  in  our  ti'anslation  allowed  to  run  into  the  sense  of 
uTTiarilt',  as  at  John  iii.,  36;  Acts  xiv.,  2;  xix.,  9;  Rom.  xi., 
30  (the  right  translation  in  the  margin) ;  and  yet,  as  I  have 
said,  the  distinction  is  real ;  awddeia,  or  "  disobedience,"  is  the 
result  of  cnn<Trla,  ov  "  unbelief ;"  they  are  not  identical  with 
one  another. 

Again,  there  Avas  no  possible  reason  why  cropoQ  and  (ppoytfxoe 

*  The  remarkable  fact  that  SovXog  is  never  rendered  "slave"  in  our  ver- 
sion, that  a  word  apparently  of  such  prime  necessity  as  "slave"  only  occurs 
twice  in  the  whole  English  Bible — once  in  the  old  Testament  (Jer.  ii.,  14) 
and  once  in  the  New  (Rev.  xviii.,  13,  for  ffw/xara),  must  be  explained  in  part 
by  the  comparative  newness  of  the  word  in  oiu-  language  (Gascoigne  is  the 
earliest  authority  for  it  which  our  Dictionaries  give).  This,  however,  would 
not  of  itself  be  sufficient  to  account  for  it,  in  the  presence  of  the  frequent  em- 
ployment of  "slave"  in  the  contemporary  writings  of  Shakespeare.  The  rea- 
son lies  deeper.  In  the  ancient  world,  where  almost  all  service  was  slavery, 
there  was  no  opprobium,  no  ethical  contempt  tinging  the  word  dovXog.  It  is 
otherwise  with  "  slave"  in  that  modern  world  where  slavery  and  liberty  exist 
side  by  side,  where  it  is  felt  that  no  man  ought  to  be  a  slave,  that  no  very 
brave  man  would  be ;  that  the  service  which  the  slave  renders  is  rendered 
not  for  conscience  sake,  but  of  compulsion.  It  is  impossible  to  dissociate  the 
word  now  from  something  of  contempt.  "  Paul,  the  slave  of  Jesus  Christ," 
literally  accurate,  would  in  fact  have  said  something  very  different  from  Ilai;- 
\os,  SovXos  'IricFov  Xpicrrov. 


ox  SOME  SEAL  DISTINCTIOXS  EFFACED.  93 

should  not  have  been  kept  asunder,  and  the  real  distinction 
which  exists  between  them  in  the  original  maintained  also  in 
our  version.  We  possess  "wise"  for  ao^og,  and  "prudent" 
for  (ppovifiog.  It  is  true  that  awsTOQ  has  taken  jDOSsession  of 
"  prudent,"  but  might  have  better  been  rendered  by  "  under- 
standing." Our  translators  have  thrown  away  their  advan- 
tage here,  rendering,  I  believe  in  every  case,  both  aofog  and 
ippoviiioq  by  "wise,"  although  in  no  single  instance  are  the 
words  interchangeable.  The  (pporifxog  is  one  who  dexterously 
adapts  his  means  to  his  ends  (Luke  xvi.,  8),  the  word  express- 
ing nothing  in  respect  of  the  ends  themselves,  whether  they 
are  worthy  or  not ;  the  (T0(p6g  is  one  whose  means  and  ends 
are  alike  worthy.  God  is  (T0(f)6g  (Jude  25) ;  wicked  men  may 
be  <[>p6vinoi,  while  aotpol,  except  in  the  aofia  rov  Koafjiov,  which 
is  itself  an  ironical  terra,  they  could  never  be.  How  much 
would  have  been  gained  at  Luke  xvi.,  8,  if  (ppovifiug  had  been 
rendered  not  "wisely,"  but  "prudently;"  how  much  needless 
offense  would  have  been  avoided ! 

The  standing  word  which  St.  Paul  uses  to  express  the  for- 
giveness of  sins"  is  a<pEaig  ctfiapriuiy ;  but  on  One  remarkable  oc- 
casion he  changes  his  word,  and  instead  of  afemg  employs  va- 
petTig  (Rom.  iii.,  25).  Our  translators  take  no  note  of  the  very 
noticeable  substitution,  but  render  Traptaiv  afiapnujv,  or  rather 
here  a/iaprrifiarwv,  ^^  remission  of  sins,"  as  every  where  else 
they  have  rendered  the  more  usual  phrase.  But  it  was  not 
for  nothing  that  St.  Paul  used  here  quite  another  word.  He 
is  speaking  of  quite  a  different  thing ;  he  is  speaking,  not  of 
the  "  remission"  of  sins,  or  the  letting  of  them  quite  go,  but 
of  the  "pretermission"  {Tapecrig,  from  Trapiri fit) ^  the  passing  of 
them  by  on  the  part  of  God  for  a  while,  the  temporary  dis- 
simulation upon  his  part,  which  found  place  under  the  old 
covenant,  in  consideration  of  the  great  sacrifice  which  was 
one  day  to  be.  The  passage  is  further  obscured  by  the  fact 
that  our  translators  have  rendered  cta  rr/v  Traptmv  as  though 
it  had  been  lib.  riig  TrapEtreojg — "/or  the  remission,"  that  is,  with 
a  view  to  the  remission,  while  the  proper  rendering  of  ^la, 


94  TRENCH  ON  AUTR.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

with  an  accusative,  would  of  course  have  been  "  because  of 
the  remission,"  or,  better,  "  the  pretermission,"  or,  as  Ham- 
mond proposes,  "  because  of  the  passing  hy^  of  past  sins." 
What  the  apostle  would  say  is  this :  "  There  needed  a  signal 
manifestation  of  the  righteousness  of  God  on  account  of  the 
long  pretermission,  or  passing  by,  of  sins  in  his  infinite  for- 
bearance, with  no  adequate  expression  of  his  righteous  wrath 
against  them  during  all  those  ages  which  preceded  the  reve- 
lation of  Christ ;  which  manifestation  of  his  righteousness  at 
length  found  place  when  he  set  forth  no  other  and  no  less 
than  his  own  Son  to  be  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  sin." 
But  the  passage,  as  we  have  it  now,  can  not  be  said  to  yield 
this  meaning. 

There  are  two  occasions  on  which  a  multitude  is  miracu- 
lously fed  by  our  Lord ;  and  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that 
on  the  first  occasion  in  every  narrative,  and  there'  are  four 
records  of  the  mii'acle,  the  word  K6(j)iyo£  is  used  of  the  baskets 
in  which  the  fragments  which  remain  are  gathered  up  (Matt. 
xiv.,20;  Mark  vi.,43;  Luke  ix.,!?;  John  vi.,  13),  while  on 
occasion  of  the  second  miracle,  in  the  two  records  which  are 
all  that  we  have  of  it,  (nrvpig  is  used  (Matt,  xv.,  37 ;  Mark 
viii.,  8) ;  and  in  pi'oof  that  this  is  not  accidental,  see  Matt, 
xvi.,  9, 10;  Mark  viii.,  19,20.  The  fact  is  a  slight,  yet  not 
unimportant,  testimony  to  the  entire  distinctness  of  the  two 
miracles,  and  that  we  have  not  here,  as  some  of  the  modern 
assailants  of  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  Gospels  assure  us, 
two  confused  traditions  of  one  and  the  same  event.  What 
the  exact  distinction  between  Kocpivoe  and  (rwvp'tQ  is  may  be 
hard  to  determine,  and  it  may  not  be  very  easy  to  suggest 
what  second  word  should  have  marked  this  distinction ;  for 
"  maunds"  is  now  obsolete,  and  a  "  canister"  is  not  a  basket 
any  longer ;  yet  I  can  not  but  think  that  where  not  merely 
the  evangelists  in  their  narrative,  but  the  Lord  in  his  allusion 
to  the  event,  so  distinctly  marks  a  diflference,  we  should  have 
attempted  to  mark  it  also,  as  the  Vulgate  by  "  cophini"  and 
"  sportae"  has  done. 


Olf  SOME  HEAL  DISTINCTIONS  EFFA  CED.  95 

Again,  our  translators  obliterate,  for  the  most  part,  the 
distinction  between  TraTc  Qeov  and  v'iuq  Qeov  as  applied  to 
Christ.  There  are  five  passages  in  the  New  Testament  in 
which  the  title  iraiq  Qeov  is  given  to  the  Son  of  God.  In  the 
first  of  these  (Matt,  xii.,  18)  they  have  rendered  ttoTc  by  "serv- 
ant ;"  and  they  would  have  done  well  if  they  had  abode  by 
this  in  the  other  four.  These  all  occur  in  the  Acts,  and  in 
every  one  of  them  the  notion  of  "servant"  is  abandoned,  and 
"son"  (Acts  iii.,  13,  26),  or  "child"  (Acts  iv.,  27,  30),  intro- 
duced. I  can  not  but  feel  that  in  this  they  were  in  error. 
IlaTc  Qeov  might  be  rendered  "  servant  of  God,"  and  I  am  per- 
suaded that  it  ought.  It  might  be,  for  it  needs  not  to  say 
Tralc  is  continually  used  like  the  Latin  "  puer"  in  the  sense  of 
servant,  and  in  the  LXX.  TraTc  0fov  as  the  "  servant  of  God ;" 
David  calls  himself  so  no  less  than  seven  times  in  2  Sam.  vij. ; 
corap.  Luke  i.,  69 ;  Acts  iv.,  25  ;  Job  i.,  8  ;  Psa.  xix.,  12, 14. 
But  not  merely  it  might  have  been  thus  rendered ;  it  also 
should  have  been,  as  these  reasons  convince  me :  Every  stu- 
dent of  prophecy  must  have  noticed  how  much  there  is  in 
Isaiah  prophesying  of  Christ  under  the  aspect  of  "  the  serv- 
ant of  the  Lord ;"  "  Israel  my  servant  y"  "  my  servant  whom 
I  uphold"  (Isa.  xlii.,  1-7 ;  xlix.,  1-12  ;  Iii.,  13  ;  liii.,  11).  I  say, 
prophesying  of  Christ ;  for  I  dismiss,  as  a  baseless  dream  of 
those  who  d  priori  are  determined  that  there  are,  and  there- 
fore shall  be,  no  prophecies  in  Scripture,  the  notion  that "  the 
servant  of  Jehovah"  in  Isaiah  is  Israel  according  to  the  flesh, 
or  Isaiah  himself,  or  the  body  of  the  prophets  collectively 
considered,  or  any  other  except  Christ  himself  But  it  is 
quite  certain,  from  the  inner  harmonies  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  Ncav,  that  wherever  there  is  a  large  group  of 
prophecies  in  the  Old,  there  is  some  allusion  to  them  in  the 
New.  Unless,  however,  we  render  iraiq  Qeov  by  "  servant  of 
God"  in  the  places  where  that  phrase  occurs  in  the  New, 
there  will  be  no  allusion  throughout  it  all  to  that  group  of 
prophecies  which  designate  the  Messiah  as  the  servant  of  Je- 
hovah, who  learned  obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffer- 


96         TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

ed.  I  can  not  doubt,  and,  as  far  as  I  know,  this  is  the  conclu- 
sion of  all  who  have  considered  the  subject,  that  -KoiQ  Geow 
should  be  rendered  "  servant  of  God"  as  often  as  in  the  New 
Testament  it  is  used  of  Christ.  His  Sons/dp  will  remain  suf- 
ficiently declared  in  innumerable  other  passages. 

Something  of  precision  and  beauty  is  lost  at  John  x.,  16, 
through  a  rendering  of  ai/X?/  and  Tcoifivri  both  by  "fold :"  "And 
other  sheep  I  have,  which  are  not  oi  this  fold  {avXTjq) ;  these 
also  I  must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my  voice ;  and  there 
shall  be  onefold  {Troii^vri)  and  one  shepherd."  It  is  remarka- 
ble that  in  the  Vulgate  there  is  the  same  obliteration  of  the 
distinction  between  the  two  words,"ovile"  standing  for  both. 
Substitute  "  flock"  for  "  fold"  on  the  second  occasion  of  its 
occurring  (this  was  Tyndale's  rendering,  which  we  should 
not  have  forsaken),  and  it  will  be  at  once  felt  how  much  the 
verse  will  gain.  The  Jew  and  the  Gentile  are  the  two  "  folds" 
which  Christ,  the  Good  Shepherd,  will  gather  into  a  single 
"flock." 

As  a  farther  example,  take  John  xvii.,  12 :  "While  I  was 
with  them  in  the  world,  I  kept  them  in  thy  name.  Those  that 
thou  gavest  me  I  have  kept,  and  none  of  them  is  lost."  It  is 
not  a  great  matter;  yet  who  would  not  gather  from  this 
"  kept,"  recurring  twice  in  this  verse,  that  there  must  be  also 
in  the  original  some  word  of  the  like  recurrence?  Yet  it  is 
not  so ;  the  first  "  kept"  is  en'ipovi',  and  the  second  l^v\ai,a : 
nor  ai*e  Tripeiv  and  (^vXaaaeiv  here  such  mere  synonyms  that 
the  distinction  between  them  may  be  effaced  without  loss. 
The  first  is  "servare,"  or,  better, "  conservare ;"  the  second 
"  custodire ;"  and  the  first,  the  keeping  or  preserving,  is  the 
consequence  of  the  second,  the  guarding.  What  the  Lord 
would  say  is, "I  so  guarded,  so  protected  (ecpvXa^a),  those 
whom  thou  hast  given  me,  that  I  kept  and  preserved  them 
(this  the  Tr}pr}(rtg)  unto  the  present  day."  Thus  Lampe :  "  rij- 
pely  est  generalius,  vitseque  no\ sejinalem  conservationem  po- 
test exprimere ;  (pvXdaaiiv  vero  specialius  mediorum  prasstati- 
onera,  per  quae  finis  ille  obtinetur;"  and  he  proceeds  to  quote, 


OJV  SOME  REAL  DISTINCTIONS  EFFA  CED.  9  7 

excellently  to  the  point, Prov.  xix.,  16  :  oq  <pvXaa (ret  ey-o\i)y, 
rripsT.  T))v  tavrov  ipv)(iiv. 

Before  leaving  this  branch  of  the  subject,  I  will  give  a  few 
examples  more  of  the  way  in  which  a  single  word  in  the  En- 
glish does  duty  for  many  in  the  Greek.  "To  ordain"  stands 
for  all  these  words :  KaBlffnifii  (Tit.  i.,  5) ;  opi^u)  (Acts  x.,  42) ; 
TToiEw  (Mark  iii.,  14);  ratrau)  (Acts  xiii,,  48) ;  Tidrffxt  (John  xv., 
16);  x^^po-oyi(o  (Acts  xiv.,  23).  Again,  we  are  tempted  to 
ask,  without  always  being  able,  even  while  we  ask  the  ques- 
tion, to  offer  a  satisfactory  answer  to  it,  might  not  something 
have  been  done  to  distinguish  between  avaarpof^]  (Gal.  i.,  13), 
rpoTTog  (Heb.  xiii.,  5),  7ro\tV£u/^a  (Phil,  iii.,  20),  all  rendered  "  con- 
versation;" between  (povevg  (1  Pet.  iv,,15),  mKupioQ  (Acts  xxi., 
38),  avdpojTroKTovoQ  (l  John  iii.,  15),  all  rendered  "murderer;" 
between  Uktvov  (Matt,  iv.,  20),  c\fi(pil3Xr]iTTpoy  (Matt,  iv.,  18),  and 
auyi]vr}  (Matt,  xiii.,  47),  all  translated  "net?"  Or  take  the 
words  "  thought"  and  "  to  think."  The  Biblical  psychology 
is  anyhow  a  subject  encumbered  with  most  serious  perplexi- 
ties. He  finds  it  so,  and  often  sees  his  way  but  obscurely, 
who  has  all  the  helps  which  the  most  accurate  observation 
and  comparison  of  the  terms  actually  used  by  the  sacred 
writers  Avill  afford.  Of  course,  none  but  the  student  of  the 
original  document  can  have  these  helps  in  their  fullness;  at 
the  same  time,  it  scarcely  needed  that  "  thought"  should  be 
employed  as  the  rendering  alike  of  kvQv^rjcnc  (Matt,  ix.,  4), 
ZiaXoyKT^og  (Matt.  XV.,  19),  ^lavorjjua  (Luke  xi.,  17),  kirivota  (Acts 
viii.,  22),  Xoyia^oQ  (Rom.  ii.,  15),  and  roj^yua  (2  Cor.  x,,  5)  ;  or 
that  the  verb  "  to  think"  shoiild  in  the  passages  which  follow 
be  the  one  English  representative  of  a  still  wider  circle  of 
words,  of  loKtw  (Matt,  iii.,  9),  vofii^ut  (Matt,  v.,  17),  hdvjjieofxat 
(Matt,  ix.,  4),  ^laXoylloj^ai  (Luke  xii.,  17),  hEvQvfxio}xai  (Acts  x., 
19),  virovoib)  (Acts  xiii.,  25),  iiyioixai  (Acts  xxvi.,  2),  Kpivu)  (Acts 
xxvi.,  8),  (ppovibi  (Rom.  xii.,  3),  Xoyi^o^m  (2  Cor.  iii.,  5),  josw 
(Eph.  iii,,  20),  oionai  (James  i.,  7).* 

*  For  the  distinction  between  some,  at  least,  of  these,  a  distinction  which  it 


98         TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

One  example  more.  The  verb  "  to  trouble"  is  a  very  fa- 
vorite one  with  our  translators.  There  are  no  less  than  ten 
Greek  words  or  phrases  which  it  is  employed  by  them  to 
render;  these,  namely :  kottovq  Tzapiyjjj  (Matt,  xxvi.,  10),  (tkvWu) 
(Mark  v.,  35),  ZiaTapaacru)  (Luke  i,,  29),  rvpjoai^u)  (Luke  X.,  41)*, 
TrapEvo-xXiu)  (Acts  XV.,  19),  dopyjoiofiai  (Acts  XX.,  10),  rapatrtrij} 
(Gal.  i.,  7),  avaaraTOU)  (Gal.  V.,  12),  eXi/3w  (2  Thess.  i.,  6),  hox- 
\i(o  (Heb.  xii.,  15).  If  we  add  to  these  tcT-apao-ffw,  "  exceed- 
ingly to  trouble"  (Acts  xvi.,  20),  Opoiofxai, "  to  be  troubled" 
(Matt,  xxiv.,  6),  the  word  will  do  duty  for  no  fewer  than 
twelve  Greek  words.  Now  the  English  language  may  not 
be  so  rich  in  synonyms  as  the  Greek ;  but  with  "  vex,"  "  har- 
ass," "  annoy,"  "  disturb,"  "  distress,"  "  afflict,"  "  disquiet," 
"  unsettle,"  "  burden,"  "  terrify,"  almost  every  one  of  which 
would  in  one  of  the  above  places  or  other  seem  to  me  more 
appropriate  than  the  word  actually  employed,  I  can  not  ad- 
mit that  the  poverty  or  limited  resources  of  our  language  left 
no  choice  here  but  to  efface  all  the  distinctions  between  these 
words,  as  by  the  employment  of"  trouble"  for  them  all  has, 
in  these  cases  at  least,  been  done. 

•would  be  quite  possible  to  reproduce  in  English,  see  Vomel,  Synon.  Worterluch, 
p.  131,  s.  V.  "glauben." 


ON  SOME  BETTER  RENDERINGS  FORSAKEN,  ETC.      99 


CHAPTER  VII. 

ON   SOME    BETTER   EENDEKINGS   FORSAKEN,  OR   PLACED   IN 
THE    MARGIN. 

Occasionally,  but  rarely,  our  translators  dismiss  a  better 
rendering,  which  was  in  one  or  more  of  the  earlier  versions, 
and  replace  it  by  a  worse.  It  may  be  said  of  their  version, 
in  comparison  with  those  which  went  before,  that  it  occupies 
very  much  the  place  which  the  Vulgate  did  in  regard  of  the 
Latin  versions  preceding.  In  the  whole,  an  immense  improve- 
ment, while  yet  in  some  minor  details  they  are  more  accurate 
than  it.     This  is  so  in  the  passages  which  follow. 

Matt,  xxviii.,  14. — "And  if  this  come  to  the  governor's  ears, 
we  will  persuade  him,  and  secure  you."  The  Geneva  Ver- 
sion, but  that  alone  among  the  previous  ones,*  had  given  the 

*  It  is  evident  that  there  must  have  been  some  very  good  and  careful  schol- 
arship brought  to  bear  on  this  version,  or  revision  rather.  I  have  observ-ed, 
on  several  occasions,  that  it  is  the  first  to  seize  the  exact  meaning  of  a  pas- 
sage, which  all  the  preceding  versions  had  missed,  I  will  adduce,  in  a  note, 
three  or  four  occasions  which  present  themselves  to  me  where  this  has  been 
the  case. 

Mark  xiv. ,  72. — Kat  eTn(3a\o)v  tK\au.  All  versions,  from  Wicliffe  to  Cran- 
mer  inclusive,  "And  began  to  weep,"  a  rendering  which  even  our  Authorized 
Version  has  allowed  in  the  margin.  But  the  Geneva  rightly,  "And  weigh- 
ing that  with  himself  {iTrtf3aXu)v,  that  is,  tov  vovv),he  wept."  Our  version 
is  indeed  better,  "And  when  he  thought  thereon,he  wept;"  but  the  Geneva 
is  correct,  and  the  first  which  is  so. 

Luke  xi.,  17. — Kai  olKog  iTri  oIkov,  vitttu.  Tyndale  had  it,  "And  one 
house  shall  fall  upon  another  ;"  Cranmer  and  Coverdale  the  same.  Even  to 
this  present  day  there  are  those  who  maintain  this  version — Meyer,  for  in- 
stance, with  that  singular  perv^ersity  which,  amid  his  eminent  exegetical  tact, 
he  contrives  sometimes  to  display — making  this  not  an  independent  clause 
and  thought,  but  merely  a  drawing  out  more  at  large  the  ipr}fjiu)aig  of  the 
jSaffiXtta,  just  before  spoken  of.  But  the  Geneva  rightly,  assuming  a  comma 
after  oIkov,  and  drawing  a  diafitpiaduQ  from  the  preceding  clause  into  this, 
' '  And  a  house  divided  against  itself,  falleth  :"  comp.  Matt.  xii. ,  35. 

Acts  xxiii.,27. — 'E^ttXojuqv  avrov,  fiaOdjv  on  'VmfiaXos  tanv.     Here,  too, 


100      TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

passage  rightly :  "And  if  this  come  before  the  governor  {koi 
kUv  liKovaQ^  TOvTo  ettI  tov  iiyeiiovog),  we  will  pacify  him,  and  save 
you  harmless."  The  words  of  the  original  have  reference  to 
a  judicial  hearing  of  the  matter  before  the  governor  ("si  res 
apud  ilium  judicem  agatur,"  Erasmus),  and  not  to  the  possi- 
bility of  its  reaching  his  ears  by  hearsay ;  but  this  our  trans- 
lation fails  to  express.  In  irdao^ev,  I  may  observe,  lies  a  eu- 
phemism by  no  means  rare  in  Hellenistic  Greek  (see  Krebs, 
Obss.  e  Josepho,  in  loco) :  "  We  will  take  effectual  means  to 
persuade  him ;"  as,  knowing  the  covetous,  greedy  character 
of  the  man,  they  were  able  confidently  to  jDroraise. 

the  Geneva  is  the  first  which  brings  out  the  characteristic  untruth  of  which 
Lysias,  who  otherwise  recommends  himself  favorably  to  us,  is  guilty  in  his 
letter  to  Felix.  Wishing  to  obtain  credit  with  his  superior  officer,  to  set  his 
own  zeal  in  the  most  favorable  light,  he  contrives,  by  a  slight  shifting  of  the 
order  of  events,  to  make  it  appear  that  he  rescued  Paul  out  of  the  hands  of 
the  fanatic  Jewish  populace,  "  having  understood  that  he  was  a  Eoman ;" 
when,  indeed,  he  only  discovered  the  citizenship  of  Paul  at  a  later  period 
(comp.  xxi.,32,  33,  and  xxii.,  27),  and  not  until  he  had  grossly  outraged  the 
majesty  of  Rome  in  him,  all  mention  of  which  he  naturally  suppresses.  The 
earlier  Anglican  versions  had  it,  "Then  came  I  with  soldiers  and  rescued 
him,  and  perceived  that  he  was  a  Eoman  ;"  as  though,  which  was  indeed  the 
fact,  but  not  what  he  would  present  as  the  fact,  he  had  perceived  this  after 
the  rescue;  but  the  Geneva  ri^wXy,'''' perceiving  that  he  was  Eoman" — not 
the  truth,  but  what  he  would  present  as  the  truth.  The  attempt  of  Grotius 
to  make  fiaQu)v\\QXQ=Kai  ifxaQop  must  be  decidedly  rejected;  see  Winer, 
Gramm.,  §  46. 

Acts  xxvii.,  9. — Aia  to  kui  tt/v  vr}(jTtiav  ijSri  7rapi\r)\v9ivai.  None  of  our 
earlier  translators  appear  to  have  been  aware  that  >/  vijortia  was  a  name  by 
which  the  great  fast  of  the  Atonement,  being  the  only  fast-  specially  com- 
manded in  the  Jewish  ritual  (Lev.  xvi.,  29;  xxiii.,  27),  M-as  technically 
known ;  see  Philo,  De  Septen. ,  §  2.  We  may  see  from  Tyndale's  words, ' '  be- 
cause also  we  had  overlong  fasted,"  how  utterly  astray  they  would  be,  in  con- 
sequence of  this  ignorance,  as  regards  the  meaning  of  this  passage.  But  the 
Geneva  rightly,  "  because  also  the  time  of  the  fast  was  now  passed." 

James  i.,  13. —  O  yap  Olog  aTriipaarog  tan  kokCji'.  All  the  translations 
which  had  gone  before,  from  Wicklifte  to  Cranmer,  giving  to  cnriipaarog  an 
active  signification,  which  it  certainly  might  have,  but  has  not  here,  had  made 
this  clause  a  mere  tautology  to  that  which  follows.  Thus  Tyjidale:  "For 
God  tempteth  not  unto  evil,  neither  tempteth  he  any  man."  The  Geneva  urst 
ascribed  to  uinipaaTog  its  proper  passive  force  (see  Winer,  Gramm.,  §  30,  4), 
translating  in  words  which  our  version  has  retained,  "For  God  can  not  be 
tempted  with  evil,  neither  tempteth  he  any  man." 


ON  SOME  BETTER  RENDERINGS  FORSAKEN,  ETC.        i  q  1 

Mark  xi.,  17. — "  Is  it  not  written,  My  house  sliall  be  called 
of  all  7iations  the  house  of  prayer  ?  but  ye  have  made  it  a 
den  of  thieves."  In  Tyndale's  version,  in  Cranmer's,  and  the 
Geneva,  "My  house  shall  be  called  the  house  of  prayer  u7ito 
all  nations  ;  but  ye,  etc.,"  and  rightly.  There  is  no  difBculty 
whatever  in  giving  Trdcri  roTc  tdyem  a  dative  rather  than  an 
ablative  sense,  while  thus  the  passage  is  brought  into  exact 
agreement  with  that  in  Isaiah,  to  which  Christ,  in  his  "Is  it 
not  written  ?"  refers,  namely,  Isa.  Ivi.,  7 ;  and,  moreover,  the 
point  of  his  words  is  preserved,  which  the  present  transla- 
tion misses.  Our  Lord's  indignation  was  aroused  in  part  at 
the  profanation  of  the  holy  precincts  of  his  Father's  house, 
but  in  part,  also,  by  the  fact  that,  the  scene  of  this  profana- 
tion being  the  court  of  the  Gentiles,  the  Jews  have  thus  man- 
aged to  testify  their  contempt  for  them,  and  for  their  share 
in  the  blessings  of  the  covenant.  Those  parts  of  the  Temple 
which  Avere  exclusively  their  own,  the  Court  of  the  Priests 
and  the  Court  of  the  Israelites,  they  had  kept  clear  of  these 
buyers  and  sellers;  but  that  part  assigned  to  the  Gentile 
worshipers,  the  (refiojievoi  tov  0foj',  they  were  little  concerned 
about  the  profanation  to  which  it  was  exposed,  perhaps 
pleased  with  it  rather.  But  He  who  came  into  the  world  to 
be  a  Redeemer,  not  of  Jews  only,  but  also  of  Gentiles,  quotes 
in  a  righteous  indignation  the  words  of  the  prophet,  which 
they  had  done  all  that  in  them  lay  to  irritate  and  defeat: 
"My  house  shall  be  called  the  house  of  prayer  unto  all  na- 
tions ;"  all  which  intention  on  his  part  in  the  citation  of  the 
prophecy  our  version  fails  to  preserve.  Medc,  in  an  interest- 
ing discourse  upon  the  text,*  ascribes  to  the  influence  of  Beza 
this  alteration,  which  is  certainly  one  for  the  worse. 

Luke  xvi.,1. — "The  same  was  accused  unto  him  that  he 
had  wasted  his  goods."  The  Geneva  had  corrected  this,  which 
was  in  Tyndale  and  Cranmer,  and  given  to  we  ciatrKopTrliiwv  its 
proper  sense,  "^Aa^  he  wasted,''^  the  accusation  referring  not 
to  what  the  steward  had  done,  but  now  was  doing. 
*  JFoT-^s,  London,  1C72,  p.  44;  comp.  p.  11. 


1 02      TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Acts  xxi.,  3. — "  Foi'  there  the  ship  was  to  unlade  her  bur- 
den." This,  supported  though  it  be  by  Valckenaer  ("  eo  na- 
vis  merces  expositura  eraf)  and  others,  is  incorrect.  There 
can  no  such  future  sense  be  given  to  ^v  aTO(popTil,6ixEvov ;  see 
Winer,  Gramm.,  §  46,  5.  St.  Luke  would  say  "was  unlad- 
ing," or  "  was  engaged  in  unlading ;"  and  Tyndale  rightly, 
whom  Cranmer  and  the  Geneva  follow :  "  For  there  the  ship 
iinladed  her  burden."  He  is  sjjeaking  from  a  point  of  view 
taken  after  the  ship's  arrival  at  this  place,  and  of  what  it  act- 
ually did,  not  of  what  it  should  do. 

Ephes.  iv.,  18. — "Because  of  the  blindness  of  their  hearts." 
The  Geneva  Version  had  given  this  rightly :  "  Because  of  the 
hardness  of  their  heart ;"  which  better  rendering  our  trans- 
lators forsake,  being  content  to  place  it  in  the  margin.  But 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Trwjowo-ie  is  from  the  substantive 
TTwpog,  a  porous  kind  of  stone,  and  from  Triopow,  to  become  cal- 
lous, hard,  or  stony  (Mark  vi.,  52  ;  John  xii,,  40 ;  Kom.  xi.,  7; 
2  Cor.  iii,,  14) ;  not  from  xwjooe,  blind.  How  much  better,  too, 
this  agrees  with  what  follows — "  who,  being  2^ctst  feeling''^ 
(that  is,  having  through  their  hardness  or  callousness  of  heart 
arrived  at  a  condition  of  miserable  avaitrdTjcrla),"  have  given 
themselves  over  to  work  all  uncleanness  with  greediness." 
I  may  observe  that  at  Rom.  xi.,  7,  they  have  in  like  manner 
put  "  blinded"  in  the  text,  and  "  hardened,"  the  correct  ren- 
dering of  lTru)p(l)OT](Tav,  in  the  margin;  while  at  2  Cor.  iii.,  14, 
where  they  translate  aW  l-n-wpwdr)  ra  vorifiara  avrwy, "  but  their 
minds  loere  blinded"  the  correcter  is  not  even  offered  as  an 
alternative  rendering.  Wicliffe  and  the  Rheims,  which  both 
depend  on  the  Vulgate  ("sed  obtusi  sunt  sensus  eorum"),  are 
here  the  only  correct  versions. 

1  Thess.  v.,  22. — "Abstain  from  all  appearance  of  evil." 
An  injurious  rendering  of  the  words  otto  vravroc  tilovq  -Trovripov 
cnrix^ffde,  and  a  going  back  from  the  right  translatiop.  "Ab- 
stain from  all  kind  of  evil,"  which  the  Geneva  Version  had. 
It  is  from  the  reality  of  evil,  and  d^o£  here  means  this  (see  a 
good  note  in  Hammond),  not  from  the  appearance,  which 


ON  SOME  BETTER  RENDERIFOS  FOESAKEW,  ETC.        i  q  3 

God's  Word  elsewhere  commands  us  to  abstain ;  nor  does  it 
here  command  any  other  thing.*  Indeed,  there  are  times 
when,  so  far  from  abstaining  from  all  appearance  of  evil,  it 
will  be  a  part  of  Christian  courage  not  to  abstain  from  such. 
It  was  an  "  appearance  of  evil"  in  the  eyes  of  the  Pharisees 
when  our  Lord  healed  on  the  Sabbath,  or  showed  himself  a 
friend  of  publicans  and  sinners ;  but  Christ  did  not  therefore 
abstain  from  this  or  from  that.  How  many  "  appearances  of 
evil,"  which  he  might  have  abstained  from,  yet  did  not,  must 
St.Paul's  own  conversation  have  presented  in  the  eyes  of  the 
zealots  for  the  ceremonial  law.  I  was  once  inclined  to  think 
that  our  translators  used  "appearance"  here  as  we  might 
now  use  "  form,"  and  that  we  therefore  had  here  an  obsolete, 
not  an  inaccurate  rendering ;  but  I  can  find  no  authority  for 
this  use  of  the  word. 

1  Tim.  vi.,  5. — "Supposing  that  gain  is  godliness.''''  It  is 
difficult  to  connect  any  meaning  whatever  with  this  lan- 
guage. But  Coverdale,  and  he  alone  of  our  translators,  deals 
with  these  words,  vo^ii^ovtuv  iropKrixov  tlvai  Tijy  ev(7fl3eiav,  right- 
ly— "which  think  that  godliness  is  lucre^''  i.  e.,  a  means  of  gain. 
The  want  of  a  thorough  mastery  of  the  Greek  article  and  its 
use  left  it  possible  here  to  go  back  from  a  right  rendering 
once  attained. 

Heb.  ix.,  23. — "  It  was  therefore  necessary  that  thep>atterns 
of  things  in  the  heavens  should  be  purified  with  these,  but 
the  heavenly  things  themselves  with  better  sacrifices  than 
these."  "  Patterns"  introduces  some  confusion  here,  and  is 
not  justified  by  the  word's  use  in  the  time  of  our  translators 
any  more  than  in  our  own.  It  is,  of  course,  quite  true  that 
vTTohiyfia  may  mean,  and,  indeed,  often  does  mean, "  pattern" 
or  "exemplar"  (John  xiii.,15).  But  here,  as  at  viii.,  5  (utto- 
hiyfxa  /cat  ffKia),  it  can  only  mean  the  "  copy"  drawn  from  this 

*  Jeanes,  chiefly  remembered  now  for  his  theological  controversy  with  Jer- 
emy Taylor,  in  which  the  greater  man  had  not  always  the  best  of  the  argu- 
ment, in  a  treatiseof  some  merit,  Concerning  Abstinence  from  all  Appearance 
of  Evil  (Works,  IGGO,  p.  G8  sqq.),  defends  our  present  version  of  the  words. 


1 04       TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

exemplar.  The  heavenly  things  themselves  are  "the  pat- 
terns" or  archetyi^es,  the  "  Urbilder ;"  the  earthly,  the  Levit- 
ical  tabernacle,  with  its  priests  and  sacrifices,  are  the  copies, 
the  similitudes,  the  "  Abbilder,"  which,  as  such,  are  partakers, 
not  of  a  real,  but  a  typical  purification.  This  is,  indeed,  the 
very  point  which  the  apostle  is  urging,  and  his  whole  antith- 
esis is  confused  by  calling  the  earthly  things  "  the  patterns," 
being,  as  they  are,  only  the  shadows  of  the  true.  The  earlier 
translators,  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  the  Geneva,  had  "  simili- 
tudes," which  was  correct, though  it  seems  to  me  that  "cop- 
ies" would  be  preferable.* 

Heb.  xi.,  13. — "  These  all  died  in  faith ;  not  having  received 
the  promises,  but  having  seen  them  afar  ofi",  and  were  per- 
suaded of  them,  and  embraced  them."  But  with  all  respect 
be  it  said,  this  "  embracing  the  promises"  was  the  very  thing 
which  the  worthies  of  the  Old  Testament  did  not  do,  and 
which  the  sacred  writer  is  urging  throughout  that  they  did 
not  do,  who  only  saw  them  from  afar,  as  things  distant  and 
not  near.  Our  present  rendering  is  an  unfortunate  going 
back  from  Tyndale's  and  Cranmer's  "  saluted  them,"  from 
Wicliffe's  "  greeted  them."  The  beautiful  image  of  mariners 
homeward  bound,  who  recognize  from  afar  the  promontories 
and  well-known  features  of  a  beloved  land,  and  "  greet"  or 
"salute"  these  from  a  distance,  is  lost  to  us.  Estius:  "Chry- 
sostoraus  dictum  putat  ex  metaphora  navigantium  qui  ex 
longinquo  prospiciunt  civitates  desideratas,  quas  antequam 
ingrediantur  et  inhabitant,  salutatione  praeveniunt."  Comp. 
Virgil,  .^^».,  iii.,  524  : 

"Italiam  lacto  socii  clamore  salutant." 
In  other  respects  our  own  version  is  unsatisfactory.     The 

*  It  is  familiarly  known  to  all  students  of  English  that  "  pattern"  is  origi- 
nally only  another  spelling  of  "patron"  (the  client  imitates  his  patroii ,-  the 
copy  takes  after  its  pattern),  however  they  may  have  now  separated  off  into 
two  words.  But  it  is  interesting  to  notice  the  word  when  as  yet  this  separa- 
tion of  one  into  two  had  not  uttered  itself  in  different  orthography.  We  do 
this  Heh.  viii.,  5  (Geneva  Version)  :  "which  priestes  serve  unto  the  patrone 
and  shadow  of  heavenly  things." 


OJV  SOME  BETTER  RENDERINGS  FORSAKEN,  ETC.        \  05 

words, "  and  were  persuaded  of  them,"  have  no  right  to  a 
place  in  the  text ;  while  the  "  afar  oif "  {iroppioQev)  belongs  not 
to  the  seeing  alone,  but  to  the  saluting  as  well.  How  beau- 
tifully the  verse  would  read  thus  amended:  "These  all  died 
in  faith ;  not  having  received  the  promises,  but  having  seen 
and  saluted  them  from  afar."  We  have  exactly  such  a  salu- 
tation from  afar  in  the  words  of  the  dying  Jacob  :  "  I  have 
waited  for  thy  salvation,  O  Lord"  (Gen.  xlix.,  18). 

1  Pet.  i.,  17. — "And  if  ye  call  on  the  Father^  who  without 
respect  of  persons  judgeth  according  to  every  man's  work, 
pass  the  time  of  your  sojourning  here  in  fear."  Here,  too,  it 
must  be  confessed  that  we  have  left  a  better  and  chosen  a 
worse  rendering.  The  Geneva  had  it, "  And  if  ye  call  Him 
Father^  who  without  respect  of  persons,  etc.,"  and  this,  and 
this  only,  is  the  meaning  which  the  words  of  the  original,  Kal 
ft  Waripa  iTriKoXElaQe  tov  d7rpo(TWToX?y7rrwe  Kpivovra^  k.t.X.^  Will  bear. 

It  must  not  be  supposed  from  what  has  been  here  ad- 
duced that  our  translators  did  not  exercise  a  very  careful 
revision  of  the  translations  preceding.  In  every  page  of 
their  work  there  is  evidence  that  they  did  so.  Of  many  pas- 
sages our  Authorized  Version  is  the  first  that  has  seized  the 
true  meaning.  It  would  be  easy  for  me  to  bring  forward 
many  proofs  of  this,  only  that  my  task  is  here,  passing  over 
the  hundred  excellencies,  to  fasten  rather  on  the  single  fault; 
and  I  must  therefore  content  myself  with  just  sufficient  to 
confirm  my  assertion.  Thus,  at  Heb.  iv,,  1,  none  of  the  pre- 
ceding versions,  neither  the  Anglican,  nor  the  Rheims,  had 
correctly  given  KaToXuTro^ivric,  lirayyeXiae :  they  all  translate 
it  "  forsaking  the  promise,"  or  something  similar,  instead  of, 
as  we  have  rightly  done, "  a  promise  being  left  us."  Again, 
at  Acts  xii.,  19,  the  technical  meaning  of  airaxdfjvai  (like  the 
Latin  "  duci,""  agi"),  that  it  signifies  here  to  be  "  led  away  to 
execution"  (comp.  Demosthenes,  431,7),  is  wholly  missed  by 
Tyndale  ("he  examined  the  keepers  and  commanded  to  de- 
part''''), by  Cranmer  and  the  Rheims;.  it  is  only  partially 
seized  by  the  Geneva  Version  ("  commanded  them  to  be  led 


106      TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

to  he  punished''')^  but  perfectly  by  our  translators.  Far  more 
important  than  this  is  the  clear  recognition  of  the  personali- 
ty of  the  Word  in  the  prologue  of  St.  John  by  our  translators : 
"All  things  were  made  hy  Him  f  ^^  In  Him  was  life"  (John 
i.,  3, 4) ;  while  in  all  our  preceding  versions  it  is  read,"All 
things  were  made  by  «Y,"  and  so  on.  Our  version  is  the  first 
which  gives  awaXi^ofieyog  (Acts  i.,4)  rightly. 

Improvements  also  are  very  frequent  in  single  words  and 
phrases,  even  where  those  which  are  displaced  were  not  ab- 
solutely incorrect.  Thus,  how  much  better  "  earnest  expec- 
tation" (Rom.  viii.,  19)  than  "fervent  desire,"  as  a  rendering 
oicnroKapadoKca;  "  moved  with  envy"  (Acts  vii.,  9)  than  "hav- 
ing indignation"  of  ^rjXwa-avTeg ;  "tattlers"  than  "triflers,"  as 
a  rendering  of  fXlapoi  (1  Tim.  v.,  13);  indeed,  the  latter  could 
hardly  be  said  to  be  correct.*  How  much  better  "  being  got- 
ten  from  them"  than  '■'■h^mg  parted  from  them"  (Acts  xxi.,1), 
for  it  expresses,  perhaps  even  it  too  weakly  {airoavaaBivTag  is 
the  word  in  the  original),  the  painful  struggle  with  which 
this  separation  was  efiected,  of  which  there  is  no  hint  in  the 
versions  preceding.  '■'■Whited  sepulchres"  is  an  improvement 
upon  ^^ painted  sepulchres"  (ra^oi  KeKovia^ivoi,  Matt,  xxiii.,  27), 
which  all  our  preceding  versions  had.  "Without  distrac- 
tion^'' (1  Cor.  vii.,  35)  is  a  far  better  rendering  of  cnrEpi<nrd(TT(jjg 
than  "  without  separation.''^  "  Leopard"  is  better  than  "  cat 
of  the  mountain,"  Rev.  xiii.,  2  (it  is  Trap^aXig  in  the  original). 
"Mysteries,"  i.  e.," religious  secrets,"  is  much  to  be  preferred 
to  "  secrets,"  which  all  our  preceding  Anglican  versions  had 
often,  though  not  always,  where  the  word  fxvcrrtipwt'  occurred 
(Matt,  xiii.,  11;  Rom.  xi.,  25  ;  1  Cor.  xiii.,  2).  "Be  opened" 
or  "  be  disclosed,"  with  which  all  that  went  before  rendered 
cnroKoXvcpdy  (2  Thess.  ii.,  3) — and  compare  ver.  8, "  be  uttered" 
— quite  obscured  the  terrible  signification  of  the  revelation 

*  Unless,  indeed, " trifler"  once  meant  " utterer  of  trifles,"  and  thus  "tat- 
tler;" which  may  perhaps  be,  as  I  observe  in  the  fragment  of  a  Nominale 
published  by  Wright,  National  Antiquities,  vol.  i.,  p.  216,  "  nugigerulus"  giv- 
en as  the  Latin  equivalent  of  "  trifler." 


O.V  SOME  BETTER  RENDERINGS  FORSAKEN,  ETC.        ]  07 

of  the  Man  of  Sin,  which  the  apostle  sets  over  against  the 
revelation  of  the  Son  of  God.  It  was  slovenly  to  introduce 
"  Candy,"  the  modern  name  of  Crete,  which  all  before  our 
own  had  done,  at  Acts  xxvii.,  7, 12,  21,  but  Avhich  in  ours  is 
removed,  and  not  less  slovenly  to  confound  "  Nazarite"  and 
"  Nazarene,"  substituting  the  former  for  the  latter,  an  error 
into  which,  in  like  manner,  they  all,  at  Matt,  ii.,  23,  and  Acts 
xxiv.,  5,  had  fallen,  introducing,  in  the  former  of  these  places 
at  least,  a  new  element  of  difficulty  into  a  passage  sufficient- 
ly difficult  already. 

But  this  going  back  from  preferable  renderings  already  at- 
tained is  not  all.  There  are  better  translations,  derived  either 
from  the  labors  of  their  predecessors  or  suggested  to  them- 
selves, which,  provokingly  enough,  they  half  adopt,  placing 
them  in  the  margin,  while  they  satisfy  themselves  with  a 
Averse  in  the  text.  It  may  perhaps  be  urged  that  here,  at 
least,  they  offer  the  better  to  the  reader's  choice.  But  prac- 
tically this  can  not  be  said  to  be  the  case.  For,  in  the  first 
place,  the  proportion  of  our  Bibles  is  very  small  even  now 
which  are  printed  with  these  marginal  variations,  as  com- 
pared with  those  in  which  they  are  suppressed.  At  one  time 
it  was  smaller  still ;  from  some  words  of  Hammond  in  the  ad- 
vertisement to  his  New  Testament,  it  would  seem  they  had 
entirely  dropped  out  of  use  in  his  time — he  speaks  there  of 
"  the  manner  which  was  formerly  used  in  our  Bibles  of  the 
larger  impression,  of  noting  some  other  renderings  in  the 
margin."  They  are  thus  brought  under  the  notice  of  very 
few  among  the  readers  of  Scripture.  Nor  is  this  all.  They 
are  very  rarely  referred  to  even  by  these.  How  many,  for  in- 
stance, among  these,  even  know  of  the  existence  of  a  varia- 
tion so  important  as  that  at  John  iii,,  3?  And  even  if  they 
do  refer,  they  generally  attach  comparatively  little  authority 
to  them.  They  acquiesce  for  the  most  part,  and  naturally 
acquiesce,  in  the  verdict  of  the  translators  about  them,  who, 
by  placing  them  in  the  margin  and  not  in  the  text,  evidently 

Z 


108       TRENCH  ON  A  UTII.  VEBSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

tleclave  that  they  consider  them  not  the  best,  hut  the  second 
best  and  the  less  probable  renderings.  Then,  too,  of  course, 
they  are  never  heard  in  the  public  services  of  the  Church, 
which,  till  the  Scriptures  are  far  more  diligently  studied  in 
private  than  now  they  are,  must  always  be  a  chief  source  of 
the  jjopular  acquaintance  with  them.  It  is  impossible,  then, 
to  attach  to  a  right  interpretation  in  the  margin  any  serious 
value,  as  redressing  an  erroneous  or  imperfect  one  in  the  text. 
Marginal  variations  are  quite  without  influence  as  modifying 
the  impression  which  the  body  of  English  readers  derive  of 
any  passages  in  the  English  Bible ;  and  this  leads  me  to  ob- 
serve, by  the  way,  that  the  suggestion  which  has  been  some- 
times made  of  a  large  addition  to  these,  as  a  middle  way  and 
compromise  between  leaving  our  version  as  it  is,  and  intro- 
ducing actual  changes  into  its  text,  does  not  seem  to  me  to 
open  any  real  escape  from  our  difficulties,  nor  to  offer  any 
practical  reconciliation  of  their  Avishes  Avho  claim  and  theirs 
who  disclaim  a  revision,  while  the  objections  which  would  at- 
tend it  are  many. 

But  to  return.  The  following  are  passages  in  which  I  can 
not  doubt  that  the  better  version  has  been  placed  in  the  mar- 
gin, the  worse  in  the  text. 

Matt,  v.,  21 ;  comp,  ver.  27,  33. — "Ye  have  heard  that  it  was 
said  by  them  of  old  time."  This  rendering  of  Ippidr)  rolg  apxai- 
oiQ  is  grammatically  defensible,  while  yet  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  "  to  them  of  old  time,"  which  was  in 
all  the  preceding  versions,  but  which  our  translators  have  dis- 
missed to  the  margin,  ought  to  resume  its  place  in  the  text. 
The  four  following  passages,  Rom.  ix.,  12,  26 ;  Rev.  vi.,  11 ; 
ix.,  4,  are  decisive  in  regard  of  the  iisage  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  that  we  have  here  a  dative,  not  an  ablative. 

Matt,  ix.,  36. — "They  fainted  and  icere  scattered  abroad^  as 
sheep  having  no  shepherd."  But  "scattered  abroad"  does 
not  exactly  express  ippi^yiivoi,  any  more  than  does  the  Lu- 
ther's "zerstreut."  It  is  not  their  dispersion  one  from  an- 
other, but  their  2}rostrat ion  in  themselves,  which  is  intended. 


Oy  SOME  BETTER  RENDERmoS  FORSAKEN,  ETC.        io<j 

The  tppifxfxivoi  are  the  "prostrati,"  "temere  projecti;"  those 
that  have  cast  themselves  along  for  very  weariness,  unable 
to  travel  any  farther;  corap.  Judith  xiv.,15,LXX.  The  Vul- 
gate has  it  rightly,  "jacentes,"  which  Wicliffe  follows,  "ly- 
ing down."  Our  present  rendering  dates  as  far  back  as  Tyn- 
dale,  who  probably  got  it  from  Luther,  and  it  was  retained  in 
the  subsequent  versions,  while  the  correct  meaning  is  rele- 
gated to  the  margin. 

Matt,  x.,16. — "Be  ye  therefore  wise  as  serpents,  and  harm- 
less as  doves."  Wicliffe,  following  the  Vulgate,  had  "  simple 
as  doves."  "  Simple"  our  translators  have  dismissed  to  the 
margin ;  they  ought  to  have  kept  it  in  the  text,  as  rightly 
they  have  done  at  Rom.  xvi.,  19.  The  rendering  of  adpaioc 
by  "harmless"  here,  and  at  Phil,  ii.,  15,  grows  out  of  wrong 
etymology,  as  though  it  were  from  d  and  Kspac,  one  having  no 
horn  with  which  to  push  or  otherwise  hurt.  Thus  Bengel, 
who  falls  in  with  this  error,  glosses  here :  '■''Sine  cornit,  ungu- 
la,  dente,  aculeo."  But  this  "  without  horn"  would  be  uKspa- 
Tog,  while  the  true  derivation  of  ai^ipaioQ,  it  need  hardly  be 
said,  is  from  a  and  Kepaypvfn,  unmingled,  sincere,  and  thus  sin- 
gle, guileless,  simple,  without  all  folds.  How  much  finer  the 
antithesis  in  this  way  becomes.  "Be  ye  therefore  wise"  ("pru- 
dent" would  be  better)  "  as  serpents,  and  simple  as  doves"* 
— having  care,  that  is,  that  this  prudence  of  yours  do  not  de- 
generate into  artifice  and  guile;  letting  the  columbine  sim- 
plicity go  hand  in  hand  with  the  serpentine  prudence.  The 
exact  parallel  will  then  be  1  Cor.  xiv.,  20, 

Mark  vi.,  20. — "For  Herod  feai'ed  John, knowing  that  he 
was  a  just  man  and  an  holy,  and  observed  him.''^  This  may 
be  after  Erasmus,  who  renders  koX  crweTripei  aWov  "et  magni 
eura  faciebat ;"  so,  too,  Grotius  and  others.  Now  it  is  un- 
doubtedly true  that  awTi^ptiv  ra  Strata  (Polybius,  iv.,  60, 10) 
would  be  rightly  translated  "to  observe  things  righteous;" 

*  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  Jeremy  Taylor's  great  sermons  on  this  text 
are  severally  entitled  "Of  Christian  Prudence"  and  "Of  Christian  Simplicity' 
— a  quiet  rectification  of  the  English  text  in  the  sense  which  is  urged  above. 


110       TRENCH  OX  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

but  here  it  is  not  things,  but  a  person,  and  no  such  rendering 
is  admissible.  Translate  rather,  as  in  our  margin,  "  kept  him 
or  saved  him,"  that  is,  from  the  malice  of  Herodias;  she  laid 
plots  for  the  Baptist's  life,  but  up  to  this  time  Herod  avveryjpei, 
sheltered  or  preserved  him  ("  custodiebat  eum,"  the  Vulgate 
rightly),  so  that  her  malice  could  not  reach  him;  see  Ham- 
mond, e«  loco.  It  will  at  once  be  evident  in  how  much  strict- 
er logical  sequence  the  statement  of  the  evangelist  will  fol- 
low if  this  rendering  of  the  passage  is  admitted. 

Mark  vii.,4. — "The  washing  of  cups  and  pots, brazen  ves- 
sels, and  of  tables.''''  This  can  not  be  correct :  our  translators 
have  put  "  beds"  in  the  margin,  against  which  rendering  of 
k\ivu)v  nothing  can  be  urged  except  that  the  context  points 
clearly  here  to  these  in  a  special  aspect,  namely, to  the  "bench- 
es" or  "  couches"  on  which  the  Jews  reclined  at  their  meals. 

Luke  xvii.,  21. — "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  loithin  you.^^ 
Doubtless  ivTOQ  vfxaiy  'may  mean  this ;  but  how  could  the  Lord 
address  this  language  to  the  Pharisees?  A  very  different 
kingdom  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  within  them^  not 
to  say  that  this  whole  language  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  be- 
ing within  men,  rather  than  men  being  within  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  is,  as  one  has  justly  observed,  modei-n.  The  mar- 
ginal reading,  "  among  you,"  should  have  been  the  textual. 
"He  in  whom  the  whole  kingdom  of  heaven  is  shut  up  as  in 
a  germ,  and  from  whom  it  will  unfold  itself,  stands  in  your 
midst.^^ 

John  xiv.,  18. — "  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless."  Upon 
these  words  Archdeacon  Hare  observes :  "  What  led  our  trans- 
lators, from  Tyndale  downward,  to  render  ovk  cKpijaw  Ifidc  6p<pa- 
vovq  by  '  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless,^  I  can  not  perceive. 
Wicliffe  has  '  fadirless.'  '  Orphans,'  the  marginal  reading, 
ought  to  have  been  received  into  the  text,  for  the  force  and 
beauty  of  the  original  are  much  impaired  by  the  change."* 
If  there  was  a  difficulty  working  in  their  minds,  namely,  how 
his  departure  could  be  said  to  leave  them  "  orphans"  or  "/a- 
*  Mission  of  the  Comforter,'^.  527. 


ox  SOME  BETTER  RENDERINGS  FORSAKEN,  ETC.        \\i 

therless,''^  he  being  rather  "  tlie  first-born  among  many  breth- 
refi,''^  tliere  was  "  destitute"  and  "  desolate,"  either  of  which 
would  have  been  nearer  to  the  original  than  "  comfortless"  is. 

John  xvi.,  8. — "And  when  he  is  come, he  will  reprove  the 
world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment."  We 
have,  perhaps,  nowhere  in  our  version  more  reason  to  regret 
than  here  that  the  marginal  reading  "  convince"  has  not 
changed  places  with  the  textual "  reprove" — that "  convince" 
is  not  in  the  text,  and  "reprove,"  if  it  had  been  thought  de- 
sirable to  retain  it  at  all,  in  the  margin.  It  need  hardly  be 
observed  what  a  depth  of  meaning  there  is,  or  may  be,  in 
iXiy^eiv — and  being  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  must  not 
stop  short  of  the  fullest  and  deepest  meaning  that  the  word 
will  bear — how  much  more  than  is  expressed  by  "  reprove." 
It  is  not  to  "  reprove"  alone,  but  to  bring  home  to  the  con- 
science of  the  reproved  man,  however  unwilling  he  may  be 
to  admit  it,  a  sense  of  the  truth  of  the  charge ;  and  all  this, 
or  nearly  all  this,  our  word  "  convince"  expresses,  or  might 
be  brought  to  express.  Samuel  reproved  Saul  of  sin  (1  Sam. 
XV.,  19, 20),  Nathan  convinced  David  (2  Sam.  xii.,  '7-13),  and, 
though  less  effectually,  Elijah  co7ivinced  Ahah  (1  Kings  xxi., 
27-29).  How  much  more  glorious  a  work  this  to  ascribe  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  than  that  other  !  Indeed,  it  is  properly  his 
work,  and  his  only ;  no  man  has  in  the  highest  sense  been 
convinced  of  sin  unless  He  has  wrought  the  conviction.* 

Col.  ii.,  18. — "  Let  no  man  beguile  you  of  your  reward.''''  It 
is  evident  that  this  Karappaloevi-a}  vndc  seriously  perplexed  all 
our  early  translators,  and,  indeed,  others  besides  them.  Thus 
in  the  Italic  we  find  "  vos  superet ;"  in  the  Vulgate, "  vos  de- 
cipiat ;"  Tyndale  translates,  "  make  you  shoot  at  a  wrong 
mark ;"  the  Geneva,"  wilfully  bear  rule  over  you ;"  while  our 
translators  have  proposed  as  an  alternative  reading  to  that 

*  All  familiar  with  Archdeacon  Hare's  Mission  of  the  Comforter  will  re- 
member how  much  of  excellent  there  is  there  upon  this  point  in  the  text,  p. 
35-40,  and  in  the  long  and  learned  note,  which  is  appended  to  the  text,  what 
there  is  more  valuable  still,  p.  528-544. 


1 1 2      TRENCH  OX  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Avhicli  they  admit  into  the  text,  "judge  against  you."  The 
objection  to  this  last,  which  marks  more  insight  into  the  true 
character  of  the  word  than  any  which  went  before,  is  that  it 
is  too  obscure,  and  does  not  sufficiently  tell  its  own  story. 
The  meaning  of  ppafieveiv  is  to  adjudge  a  reward;  of  cara- 
flpaj3ev£ir',  out  of  a  hostile  mind  (this  is  implied  in  the  Kara) 
to  adjudge  it  away  from  a  person,  with  the  subaudition  that 
this  is  the  joerson  to  whom  it  is  justly  due.  Jerome  {ad  Al- 
gas.^Qu.  10)  does  not  quite  seize  the  meaning,  for  he  regards 
the  KaTafjpafjevuv  as  the  competitor  who  unjustly  bears  away, 
not  the  judge  who  unjustly  ascribes  the  reward;  otherwise 
his  explanation  is  good:  "Nemo  adversum  vos  bravium  ac- 
cipiat :  hoc  enim  Graec6  dicitur  K-ara/jjoa/jEueVw,  quum  quis  in 
eertamine  positus,  iniquitate  agonothetse,  vel  insidiis  magis- 
trorum,  (3paj3e~iov  et  palmam  sibi  debitam  perdit."  It  is  im- 
possible for  any  English  word  to  express  the  fullness  of  allu- 
sion contained  in  the  original  Greek,  while  long  circumlocu- 
tions, which  should  turn  the  version,  in  fact,  into  a  comment- 
ary, are  clearly  inadmissible.  If  "judge  against  you"  is  at 
once  too  obscure  and  too  little  of  an  English  idiom,  and 
"judge  away  the  reward  from  you"  might  be  objected  against 
on  at  least  the  second  of  these  grounds,  the  substitution  of 
"deprive"  for  "beguile"  (which  last  has  certainly  no  claim 
to  stand)  would,  in  case  of  a  revision,  be  desirable. 

1  Thess.  iv.,  6. — "  Let  no  man  go  beyond  or  defraud  his 
brother  i7i  any  matter.''''  But  rw  here  is  not  =Ta)=Tiyi,  which 
would  alone  justify  the  rendering  of  tv  rw  Trpayfiart,  "in  any 
matter."  A  more  correct  translation  is  in  the  margin,  name- 
ly, "in  the  matter,"  that  is,  "in  t/us  matter,"  being  the  mat- 
ter with  which  the  apostle  at  the  moment  has  to  do.  The 
difference  may  not  seem  very  important,  but,  indeed,  the 
whole  sense  of  the  passage  turns  on  this  word ;  and,  as  we 
translate  in  one  way  or  the  other,  we  determine  for  ourselves 
whether  it  is  a  warning  against  overreaching  our  neighbor, 
and  a  too  shrewd  dealing  with  him  in  the  business  transac- 
tions of  life,  strangely  finding  place  in  the  midst  of  warnings 


ON  SOME  BETTER  RENDERINGS  FORSAKEN,  ETC.        \  i  ;> 

against  uncleanness  and  a  libertine  freedom  in  the  relation 
of  the  sexes,  or  whether  an  unbroken  warning  against  this 
latter  evil  is  continued  through  all  these  verses  (3-9).  I  can 
not  doubt  that  the  latter  is  the  coiTect  view ;  that  to  Trpdy/ua 
is  a  euphemism,  and  our  marginal  version  the  right  one;  the 
apostle  warning  his  Thessalonian  converts  that  none,  in  a 
worse  TrXtoyet,ia  than  that  which  makes  one  man  covet  his 
neighbor's  goods,  overstep  the  limits  and  fences  by  Avhich 
God  has  hedged  round  and  separated  from  him  his  brother's 
wife.  See  Bengel,  iti  loco.  Accepting  this  view  of  the  pas- 
sage," overreach,"  which  the  margin  suggests  instead  of"  de- 
fraud" as  the  rendering  of  irXeovetcruy,  would  also  be  an  un- 
doubted improvement. 

Heb.  v.,2. — "Who  can  have  comi^assion  on  the  ignorant, 
and  on  them  that  are  out  of  the  way,  for  that  he  himself  also 
is  compassed  with  infirmity."  But  is,  it  may  fairly  be  asked, 
"  who  can  have  compassion,"  the  happiest  rendering  of  ^erpto- 
Tradeiv  cvvup.ivoQl  and  ought  fjieTfitoTradely  to  be  thus  taken  as 
entirely  synonymous  with  (rvfnraduy?  The  words  fierpioTraOely, 
(XETpioTTadiia,  belong  to  the  terminology  of  the  later  schools  of 
Greek  philosophy,  and  were  formed  to  express  that  moderate 
amount  of  emotion  (the  fxtrpiwQ  Tzaax^iv)  Avhich  the  Peripa- 
tetics and  others  acknowledged  as  becoming  a  wise  and  good 
man,  contrasted  with  the  inraQeia,  or  absolute  indolency,  which 
the  Stoics  required.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  apostle  would 
say  that  the  high-priest  taken  from  among  men,  out  of  a  sense 
of  his  own  weakness  and  infirmity,  was  in  a  condition  to  es- 
timate mildly  and  moderately,  and  not  transported  with  in- 
dignation, the  sins  and  errors  of  his  brethren ;  and  it  is  this 
view  of  the  passage  which  is  correctly  expressed  in  the  mar- 
gin :  "  who  can  reasonably  hear  with  the  ignorant,"  etc, 

2  Pet.  iii.,12. — '''■Hasting  unto  the  coming  of  the  day  of 
God."  The  Yulgate  had  in  like  manner  rendered  the  mrevlov- 
TEQ  TYiv  irapovffiar, "  properantes  in  adventum ;"  and  this  use 
of  tnrevhiv  may  be  abundantly  justified,  although  "  hasting 
toward  the  coming"  seems  to  me  to  express  more  accurately 


114      TRENCE  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

what  our  translators  probably  intended,  and  what  the  word 
allows.  This  will  then  be  pretty  nearly  De  Wette's  "  er- 
sehnend."  Yet  the  marginal  version,  "Aas^iV?<7  the  coining" 
("  accelerantes  adventum,"  Erasmus),  seems  better  still.  The 
faithful,  that  is,  shall  seek  to  cause  the  day  of  the  Lord  to 
come  the  more  quickly  by  helping  to  fulfill  those  conditions, 
without  which  it  can  not  come — that  day  being  no  day  inex- 
orably fixed,  but  one  the  arrival  of  which  it  is  free  to  the 
Church  to  help  and  hasten  on  by  faith  and  by  prayer,  and 
through  a  more  rapid  accomplishing  of  the  number  of  the 
elect  (Matt,  xxiv,,  14). 


0:y  SOME  ERRORS  OF  GREEK  GRAMMAR.  115 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ox   SOME    ERRORS    OF   GREEK   GRAMMAR. 

I  HAVE  already  spoken  of  the  English  Grammar  of  our 
translators ;  but  the  Greek  Grammar  is  also  occasionally  at 
fault.  The  most  recurring  blemishes  which  ha^-e  been  noted 
here  are  these :  1.  A  failing  to  give  due  heed  to  the  presence 
or  absence  of  the  article ;  they  omit  it  sometimes  when  it  is 
present  in  their  original,  and  when,  according  to  the  rules  of 
the  language,  it  ought  to  be  jDreserved  in  the  translation ; 
they  insert  it  when  it  is  absent  there,  and  has  no  claim  to  ob- 
tain admission  from  them.  2.  A  certain  laxity  in  the  render- 
ing of  prepositions;  for  example,  iv  is  rendered  as  if  it  were 
fJc,  and  vice  versd;  the  different  forces  of  ^ta,  as  it  governs  a 
genitive  or  an  accusative,  are  disregarded  ;  with  other  negli- 
gences of  the  same  kind.  3.  A  want  of  accurate  discrimina- 
tion of  the  forces  of  different  tenses;  aorists  being  dealt  with 
as  perfects,  perfects  as  aorists ;  imperfects  losing  their  im- 
perfect, incompleted  sense.  Moods,  too,  and  voices  are  occa- 
sionally confounded.  4.  Other  grammatical  lapses,  which  can 
not  be  included  in  any  of  these  divisions,  are  noticeable. 
These,  however,  are  the  most  serious  and  most  recurring.  I 
will  give  examples  of  them  all. 

I.  In  regard  of  the  Greek  article  our  translators  err  both 
in  excess  and  defect,  but  oftenest  in  the  latter.  They  omit 
it,  and  sometimes  not  without  serious  loss,  in  passages  where 
it  ought  to  find  place.  Such  a  passage  is  Rev.  vii.,  14: 
"These  are  they  which  came  out  of  great  tribulation." 
Rather  "out  oithe  great  tribulation"  {Ik  tj}^  d\t\petoe  rijc  fte- 
yaXTjc).  The  leaving  out  of  the  article,  so  emphatically  re- 
peated, causes  us  to  miss  the  connection  between  this  passage 
and  Matt,  xxiv.,  2^,  29 ;  Dan.  xii.,  1.  It  is  the  character  of 
the  Apocalypse,  the  crowning  book  of  the  Canon,  that  it 


1 1 6       TRENCH  ON  A  UTIT.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

abounds  with  allusions  to  preceding  Scriptures;  and,  numer- 
ous as  are  those  that  appear  on  the  surface,  those  which  lie  a 
little  below  the  surface  are  more  numerous  still.  Thus  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  allusion  is  here  to  "  the  great  tribula- 
tion" (the  same  phrase,  6\l\p(ne  fiE-yaXri)  of  the  last  days,  the 
birth-pangs  of  the  new  creation,  which  our  Lord  in  his  proph- 
ecy from  the  Mount  had  foretold. 

Heb.  xi.,10. — "He  looked  for  a  city  which  hath  founda- 
tions." Not  so ;  the  language  is  singularly  emphatic :  "  He 
looked  for  the  city  which  hath  the  foundations"  {ti)v  rovg  Oe- 
fieXiovg  iypvfrav  ttoXiv),  that  is,  the  well-known  and  often  al- 
luded to  foundations — in  other  words,  he  looked  for  the  New 
Jerusalem,  of  which  it  had  been  already  said, "Her /ozmfZa- 
tlons  are  in  the  holy  mountains"  (Psa.  Ixxxvii.,  1 ;  comp.  Isa. 
xxviii.,  16) ;  even  as  in  the  Apocalypse  great  things  are  spo- 
ken of  these  glorious  foundations  of  the  heavenly  city  (Rev. 
xxi.,14, 19, 20),  Let  me  here  observe  that  those  expositoi's 
seem  to  me  to  be  wholly  astray  who  make  the  apostle  to  say 
that  Abraham  looked  forward  to  a  period  when  the  nomad 
life  which  he  was  now  leading  should  cease,  and  his  descend- 
ants be  established  in  a  well-ordered  city,  the  earthly  Jerusa- 
lem. He  may,  indeed,  have  looked  on  to  that  as  a  pledge  of 
better  things  to  come,  but  never  to  that  as  "  the  City  having 
the  foundations ;"  nor  do  I  suppose  for  an  instant  that  our 
translators  at  all  intended  this ;  but  still,  if  they  had  repro- 
duced the  force  of  the  article,  they  would,  in  giving  the  pas- 
sage its  true  emphasis,  have  rendered  such  a  misapprehension 
on  the  part  of  their  readers  well-nigh  impossible. 

John  iii.,  10. — "Art  thou  a  teacher  of  Israel,  and  knowest 
not  these  things?"  Middleton  may  perhaps  make  too  much 
of  6  lilatTKoXoQ  here,  as  though  it  singled  out  Nicodemus  from 
among  all  the  Jewish  doctors  as  the  one  supereminent.  Yet 
it  is  equally  incorrect  to  deny  it  all  force.  Christ,  putting 
him  to  a  wholesome  shame,  would  make  him  feel  how  little 
the  realities  of  his  spiritual  insight  corresponded  with  the 
reputation  which  he  enjoyed.     "Art  thou  the  teacher,  the 


OxV  SOME  ERRORS  OF  GREEK  GRAMMAR.  ]  1 7 

famed  teacher  of  Israel,  aiid.yet  art  ignorant  of  these  things?" 
and  the  question  loses  an  emphasis,  which  I  can  not  but  be- 
lieve, with  Winer  and  many  more,  it  was  intended  to  have,  by 
the  omission  in  our  version  of  all  notice  of  the  article. 

Acts  xvii.,  1. — "They  came  to  Thessalonica,  where  was  a 
synagogue  of  the  Jews."  Grotius  gives  well  the  force  of  // 
avvaywyy']  here,  which  we  have  not  preserved :  "Articulus  ad- 
ditus  significat  Philippis,  Amphipoli  et  Apollonise  nullas  fu- 
isse  synagogas,  sed  si  qui  ibi  essent  Judaei,  eos  synagogam 
adiisse  Thessalonicensem." 

In  other  passages  it  is  plain  that  a  more  complete  mastery 
of  the  use  of  the  article  would  have  modified  the  rendering 
of  a  passage  which  our  translators  have  given.  It  would 
have  done  so,  I  am  persuaded,  at  1  Tim,  vi.,  2  :  "And  they  that 
have  believing  masters,  let  them  not  despise  them,  because 
they  are  brethren,  but  rather  do  them  service,  because  they 
are  faithful  and  beloved,  partakers  of  the  benefit''''  {on  inaToi 
dai  Kai  uyawrj-oi^  ol  rfjg  tvepyeaiaq  avTiXafijjayofievoi).  It  is  clear 
that  for  them  "  partakers  of  the  benefit"  is  but  a  farther  un- 
folding of  "Ijxithful  and  beloved,"  the  "benefit"  being  the 
grace  and  gift  of  eternal  life,  common  to  master  and  slave 
alike.  But  so  the  article  in  this  last  clause  has  not  its  rights, 
and  the  only  correct  translation  of  the  passage  will  make 
TTKTTol  ica)  ayaTn]7oi  the  predicate,  and  ol  rrJQ  ehipyetrlac  ajrtXa^u- 
flai'ofievoi  the  subject.  St.Paul  reminds  the  slaves  that  they 
shall  serve  believing  masters  the  more  cheerfully  out  of  the 
consideration  that  they  do  not  bestow  their  service  on  uncon- 
verted, unthankful  lords,  but  rather  that  they  who  are  "  par- 
takers of  the  benefit,"  that  is,  the  benefit  of  their  service,  they 
to  whom  this  service  is  rendered,  are  brethren  in  Christ. 
The  Vulgate  rightly  :  "  quia  fideles  sunt  et  dilecti,  qui  bene- 
ficii  participes  sunt."  It  needs  only  to  insert  the  words 
"  who  are"  before  "  partakers"  to  make  our  version  correct. 

But  more  important  than  in  any  of  these  passages,  as  ren- 
dering serious  doctrinal  misunderstandings  possible,  is  the 
neglect  of  the  article  at  Rom.  v.,  15, 17.     In  place  of  any  ob- 


118       TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

servations  of  my  own,  I  will  here  quote  Bentley's  criticism 
on  our  version.  Having  found  fault  with  the  rendering  of 
ol  TToWof,  Rora.  xii.,  5,  he  proceeds:  "This  will  enable  us  to 
clear  up  another  place  of  much  greater  consequence,  Rom.  v., 
where,  after  the  apostle  had  said,ver.  12, 'that  by  one  man 
sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death 
passed  upon  all  men  (etc  ■KavTag  apdpojirovc),  for  that  all  have 
sinned,'  in  the  reddition  of  the  sentence,  ver.  15,  he  says, 'for 
if,  through  the  offence  of  one  {rod  kydo),  many  {ol  ttoXXoi)  be 
dead'  (so  our  translators), 'much  more  the  grace  of  God  by 
0)ie  man  {tov  Ij'oc)  Jesus  Christ  hath  abounded  iinto  many^ 
{(.Iq  ToiiQ  TToWovc).  Now  who  would  not  wish  that  they  had 
kept  the  articles  in  the  version  which  they  saw  in  the  origi- 
nal ?  '  If,  through  the  offence  of  the  one!  (that  is,  Adam), '  the 
many  have  died,  much  more  the  grace  of  God  by  the  one  man 
hath  abounded  unto  the  many?  By  this  accurate  version 
some  hurtful  mistakes  about  partial  redemption  and  absolute 
reprobation  had  been  happily  prevented.  Our  English  read- 
ers had  then  seen,  what  several  of  the  fathers  saw  and  testi- 
fied, that  0/'  TToXKoi,  the  many,  in  an  antithesis  to  the  one,  are 
equivalent  to  irarTtc,  all,  in  ver.  12,  and  comprehend  the  whole 
multitude,  the  entire  species  of  mankind,  exclusive  only  of 
the  one.  So,  again,  ver.  18  and  19  of  the  same  chapter,  our 
translators  have  repeated  the  like  mistake,  where,  when  the 
apostle  had  said  'that  as  the  offence  of  one  was  vpon  aUmen 
{elg  iravraQ  ardpujTrovc)  to  condemnation,  SO  the  righteousness 
of  one  was  upon  all  men  to  justification  ;  for,'  adds  he,'  as  by 
the  one  man's  {tov  lyog)  disobedience  the  many  {ol  ttoWoX) 
were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  the  one  {tov  kydg) 
the  many  {ol  ttoXXoI)  shall  be  made  righteous.'  By  this  ver- 
sion the  reader  is  admonished  and  guided  to  remark  that  the 
m.any,  in  ver.  19,  are  the  same  as  7ro»'7-ec,  cdl,  in  the  18th.  But 
our  translators,  when  they  render  it  '  many  were  made  sin- 
ners, many  were  made  righteous,'  what  do  they  do  less  than 
lead  and  draw  their  unwary  readers  into  error  ?"* 

*  A  Sermon  vpon  Popery.      Works,  vol.  iii.,  p.  245 :  comp.  p.  129. 


ON  SOME  ERRORS  OF  GREEK  GRAMMAR.  1 1 9 

By  far  the  most  frequent  fault  with  our  translators  is  the 
omission  of  the  article  in  the  translation  when  it  stands  in  the 
original ;  yet  sometimes  they  fall  into  the  converse  error,  and 
insert  an  article  in  the  English  where  it  does  not  stand  in  the 
Greek,  and  this  too,  it  may  be,  not  without  injury  to  the 
sense  and  intention  of  the  sacred  writer.  It  is  so  at  Rom.  ii., 
14,  where  we  make  St. Paul  to  say, "For  when  the  Gentiles^ 
which  have  not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in 
the  law,  these,  having  not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves." 
One  might  conclude  from  this  that  the  apostle  regarded  such 
a  fulfilling  of  the  law  on  the  part  of  the  Gentiles  as  ordinary 
and  normal.  Yet  it  is  not  to.  tdyri,  but  tdyr),  and  the  passage 
must  be  rendered,  "For  when  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the 
law,  etc.,"  the  apostle  having  in  these  words  his  eye  on  the 
small  election  of  heathendom,  the  exceptions,  and  not  the  rule. 

St.Paul  has  been  sometimes  charged  with  exaggeration  in 
declaring  that  ''the  love  of  money  is  the  root  of  all  evil"  (1 
Tim.  vi.,  10) ;  and  there  have  been  attempts  to  mitigate  the 
strength  of  the  assertion,  as  that  when  he  said  "  all  evil"  he 
only  meant  "  much  evil."  The  help,  however,  does  not  lie 
here,  but  in  more  strictly  observing  what  he  does  say.  "  The 
love  of  money,"  he  declares,  "  is" — not  "?Ae  root,"  but — "a 
root,  of  all  evil."  He  does  not  affirm  that  this  is  the  bitter 
root  from  which  all  evil  springs,  but  a  bitter  root  from  which 
all  evil  may  spring;  there  is  no  sin  of  which  it  may  not  be, 
as  of  which  it  has  not  been,  the  impulsive  motive. 

Acts  xxvi.,  2. — "The  things  whereof  I  am  accused  of  the 
Jews.''''  The  insertion  of  the  article  in  the  English,  where 
there  is  no  article  in  the  Greek,  works  still  more  injuriously 
here.  St.  Paul  is  made  to  account  himself  happy  that  he 
shall  answer  before  King  Agrippa  of  all  things  whereof  he  is 
"  accused  of  the  Jews."  But  he  would  not  for  an  instant 
have  affirmed  or  admitted  that  "  the  Jews"  accused  him ;  all 
true  Jews,  all  who  held  fast  the  promises  made  to  the  fathers, 
and  now  fulfilled  in  Christ,  were  on  his  side.  It  is  true  that 
he  is  accused  "of  ./eics,"  unfaithful  members  of  the  house  of 


120       TRENCH  ON  AUTU.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Abraliam,  by  no  means  "  of  tJie  Jews."  The  force  of  ver.  7, 
in  which  our  translators  again  make  St.Paul  to  speak  of  be- 
ing "accused  of  the  Jeics,''^  is  still  more  seriously  impaired. 
lie  there  puts  before  Agrippa,  a  Jewish  proselyte,  and  there- 
fore capable  of  understanding  him,  the  monstrous,  self-con- 
tradicting absurdity,  that  for  cherishing  and  asserting  the 
Messias-hope  of  his  nation  he  should  now  be  accused — not  of 
heathens,  that  would  have  been  nothing  strange — but  "of 
e/etos,"  when  that  hope  was  indeed  the  central  treasure  of  the 
Avhole  Jewish  nation.  The  point  of  this  part  of  his  speech  is 
not  that  he  is  accused,  but  that  it  is  Jews  w^ho  accuse  him. 
Before  leaving  this  point,  I  may  observe  that  "  a  Hebrew  of 
Hebrews"  (Phil,  iii.,  5),  one,  namely,  of  pure  Hebrew  blood 
and  language  (Eppalog  £^'E/3pa£w»/),  while  it  is  more  accurate, 
would  tell  also  its  own  story  much  better  than  "  a  Hebrew 
of  the  Hebrews,"  as  we  have  it  now. 

H.  Our  translators  do  not  always  seize  the  precise  force  of 
the  jD repositions.  They  have  done  so  in  the  passages  which 
follow : 

John  iv.,  6. — Jesus  therefore  being  wearied  with  his  jour- 
ney, sat  thus  071  the  well."  It  should  be  rather  "  5y  the  well" 
(eVt  rjii  fl-j;yjl,  in  its  immediate  neighborhood.  On  two  other 
occasions,  namely,  Mark  xiii.,  29  ;  John  v.,  2,  they  have  right- 
ly gone  back  from  the  more  vigorous  rendering  of  eiri  with  a 
dative,  to  which  they  have  here  adhered :  comp.  Exod.  ii., 
15,LXX.* 

Rev.  XV.,  2. — "And  I  saw,  as  it  were,  a  sea  of  glass  mingled 
with  fire ;  and  them  that  had  gotten  the  victory  over  the 
beast  ....  stand  on  the  sea  of  glass,  having  the  harps  of 
God."  It  is  easy  to  perceive  the  inducements  which  led  our 
translators  to  render  kirl  Ttjv  ^aXatraav  Trjv  va\ipr)v  "  on  the 
sea  of  glass;"  yet  much  is  lost  thereby,  namely,  the  whole  al- 
lusion to  the  earlier  triumph  by  the  shores  of  the  Red  Sea, 
typical  of  this  the  final  triumph  of  the  Church,  when  the  lit- 

*  Yet  it  ought  to  be  said  that  Winer  (Gramm.,  §  52,  c.)  is  on  the  side  of 
our  version  as  it  stands. 


ON  SOME  ERRORS  OF  GREEK  GRAMMAR.  \2\ 

eral  Israel  sang  "the  song  of  Moses"  (Exod.  xv.,  1),  a  song 
which  never  grows  old,  for  God  is  evermore  triumphing  glo- 
riously, and  which  his  saints  are  now  at  length  taking  up 
again.  It  is,  as  Bengel  gives  it  rightly,  "Jy  the  sea  of  glass" 
("af^  mare  vitreum"),  which  "sea  of  glass"  Ave  are  not  to  un- 
derstand as  a  solid  though  diaphanous  surface,  07i  which  these 
triumphant  ones  stood  or  could  stand,  but "  as  it  tcere  a  sea 
of  glass" — not  a  "glassen,"  but  a  "glassy"  sea — a  sea  that 
might  be  compared  to  glass  in  its  clearness  and  transparen- 
cy. God's  judgments,  his  government  of  the  Church  and  the 
world, this  is  the  great  deep,  the  mystical  sea  (Psa.  xxxvi.,"^), 
on  the  shores  of  which  his  saints  stand  triumphantly  at  the 
end,  while  his  enemies  are  swallowed  up  beneath  its  waves^- 
"  a  sea  as  of  glass,"  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  visible  utterance  of 
liis  holiness,  and  shall  at  the  last  apjDear  such,  clear  and  trans- 
jiarent  to  all — but  "  as  of  glass  mingled  xoithfire^''  seeing  that 
the  wrath  and  indignation  of  God  against  sin,  of  which  wrath 
fire  is  the  standing  symbol  in  Scripture,  find  their  utterance, 
no  less  than  his  love,  in  the  world's  story. 

Heb.  vi.,  7. — "  Herbs  meet  for  them  hy  whom  it  is  dressed." 
The  translators  give  in  the  margin  as  an  alternative  "/or 
whom.''''  But  it  is  no  mere  alternative ;  of  hi  ovq  (not  II  otp)  it 
is  the  only  rendering  which  can  be  admitted.  What  actual- 
ly stands  in  the  text,  besides  being  faulty  in  grammar,  dis- 
turbs the  spiritual  image  which  underlies  the  passage.  The 
heart  of  man  is  here  the  earth;  man  is  the  dresser;  but  the 
spiritual  culture  goes  forward,  not  that  the  earth  may  bring 
forth  that  which  is  meet  for  him,  the  dresser  hy  whom,  but 
for  God,  the  owner  of  the  soil, /or  whom,  it  is  dressed.  The 
plural  ci  ouc,  instead  of  ^t'  6V,  need  not  trouble  ns,  nor  remove 
us  from  this,  the  only  right  interpretation.  The  earlier  Lat- 
in version  had  it  rightly;  see  Tertullian,  De  Pudic.^  c.  20: 
"Terra  enim  qua?  ....  peperit  herbam  aptam  his,  jt>ro/><er 
quos  et  colitur,  etc. ;"  but  the  Vulgate,  "  a  qidbus^''  antici- 
pates our  mistake,  in  which  we  only  follow  the  English  trans- 
lations preceding. 


122       TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NE  W  TESTAMENT. 

Luke  xxiii.,  42. — "And  he  said  unto  him,  Lord,  remember 
me  when  thou  comest  into  thy  kingdom^  But  how,  it  may- 
be asked,  could  our  Lord  come  into  his  kingdom  when  he  is 
liimself  tlie  centre  of  the  kingdom,  and  brings  the  kingdom 
with  him,  so  that  where  he  is,  there  the  kingdom  must  be? 
The  passage  will  gain  immensely  when,  leaving  that  strange 
and  utterly  unwarranted  assumption  that  £te,  a  preposition 
of  motion  (whither),  is  convertible  with  £i',  a  preposition  of 
rest  (where),  and  thus  that  iv  ti]  /Bao-iXet^,  which  stands  here, 
is  the  same  as  tic  r/)v  [SairiXelai;  we  translate,  "Lord,  remem- 
ber me  when  thou  comest  in  thy  kingdom^''  that  is,"  with  all 
thy  glorious  kingdom  about  thee,"  as  is  so  sublimely  set  forth, 
Rev.  xix.,14;  comp.  Jude  14;  2  Thess.  i.,7;  Matt,  xxv.,  31 
{kv  TTji  I6b^.  It  is  the  stranger  that  our  translators  should 
have  fallen  into  this  error,  seeing  that  they  have  translated 
ip^o^iivov  tv  T-jJ  l3a(TiXiiqi  a'vrov  (Matt,  xvi.,  28)  quite  correctly : 
"  coming  in  his  kingdotn.''^  The  Yulgate  also  has  "  in  regno 
tuo"  there,  although  it  shares  the  error  of  our  translation, 
and  has  "  in  regnura  tuum"  here.  The  exegetical  tact  of  Mal- 
donatus  overcomes  on  this,  as  on  many  other  occasions,  his 
respect  for  his  "  authentic"  Vulgate,  and  he  comments  thus : 
"Itaque  non  est  sensus,  Cum  veneris  ad  regnandura,  sed.  Cum 
veneris  jam  regnans,  cum  veneris  non  ad  acquirendum  reg- 
num,  sed  regno  jam  acquisito,  quemadmodum  venturus  ad  ju- 
dicium est."  The  same  faulty  rendering  of  h,  and  assump- 
tion that  it  may  have  the  force  of  tig,  that  iv  xapin  means  the 
same  as  dq  x"P'-^*  occurs  Gal.  i.,  6 ;  and  indeed  this,  or  the 
converse,  in  many  other  passages  as  well.f 

*  Some  good  words  on  this  matter  are  found  in  Windischmann's  Com- 
mentary on  this  Epistle,  ?w  loco:  "  tv  ;;^«ptri  wird  zumeist  mit  ha  xapiroq, 
Oder  (mit  Berufung  auf  Eph.  iv.,  4)  iIq  xapira  (Vulg.,'in  gratiam')  identisch 
genommen,  ist  aber  significativer  nnd  bezeichnet,  dass  der  Riif  nicht  bloss 
zur  Gnade  Christi  ergeht,  sondern  in  der  Gnade  des  Heilandes,  d.  h.  der  von 
ihm  verdienten  und  von  ihm  als  dem  Haupte  austromenden  (Rom.  v.,  15) 
wurzelt,  dass  die  Auserwahhmg  der  Berufenen  in  der  Gnade  des  Auserwahl- 
ter  Kar  t^oxr}v  beschlossen  ist  (Eph.  i.,  4)." 

t  See  "Winer's  Gramm. ,  §  54, 4,  where  he  enters  at  length  into  the  question 
whether  t!e  is  ever  used  for  ip,  or  iv  for  tig,  in  the  New  Testament.    Notwith- 


OxV  SOME  ERRORS  OF  GREEK  GRAMMAR.  i23 

2  Cor.  xi.,  3. — "But  I  fear  lest  .  .  .  your  minds  should  be 
corrupted  from  the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ''''  {airh  rijg  airXo- 
Tr]TOQ  Tijg  eig  top  Xpiffrov).  Here  again  the  injurious  supposi- 
tion that  £tc  and  iy  may  be  confounded  has  been  at  work,  and 
to  serious  loss  in  the  bringing  out  of  the  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage. The  cnrXoTTiQ  here  is  the  simple,  undivided  affection, 
the  singleness  of  heart  of  the  Bride,  the  Church,  £«£  XpiiTToy,  to- 
ward Christ.  It  is  not  their  "  simplicity  in  Christ,''^  or  Chris- 
tian simplicity,  which  the  apostle  fears  lest  they  may,  through 
addiction  to  worldly  wisdom,  forfeit  and  let  go ;  but,  still 
moving  in  the  images  of  espousals  and  marriage,  that  they 
may  not  bring  a  simple  undivided  heart  to  Christ.  If  after 
uTrXorTjroc  we  should  also  read  k-al  rj/e  ayvorrjTQg,  which  seems 
probable,  it  will  then  be  clearer  still  what  St.  Paul's  intention 
was. 

2  Pet.  i.,  5-7. — "Add  to  your  faith  virtue,  and  to  virtue 
knowledge,  and  to  knoAvledge  temperance,  and  to  temperance 
patience,  and  to  patience  godliness,  etc."  (f7rtxop»jy»;ffar£  iv  rj/ 
TriffTEi  vfxwv  Ti]v  apenjt',  k.t.X.).  Tyndale  had  rendered  the  pas- 
sage, "/«  your  faith  minister  virtue,  and  in  your  virtue  knowl- 
edge," etc.,  and  all  translations  up  to  the  Authorized  had 
followed  him.  Henry  More*  has  well  expressed  the  objec- 
tion to  the  present  version :  "  Grotius  would  have  h  to  be 
redundant  here,  so  that  his  suffrage  is  for  the  English  trans- 
lation. But,  for  my  own  part,  I  think  that  h  is  so  far  from 
being  redundant  that  it  is  essential  to  the  sentence,  and  in- 
terposed that  we  might  understand  a  greater  mystery  than 
the  mere  adding  of  so  many  virtues  one  to  another,  which 
would  be  all  that  could  be  expressly  signified  if  cV  were  left 
out.  But  the  preposition  here  signifying  causality,  there  is 
more  than  a  mere  enumeration  of  those  divine  graces ;  for 

standing  the  original  identity  of  the  two  prepositions,  tig  being  only  another 
form  of  iv,  and  the  many  passages  which  seem  to  make  for  their  indiscrimi- 
nate use,  as  Matt.  x. ,  1 6 ;  Luke  vii. ,17;  Matt,  ii.,  23 ;  John  ix. ,  7 ;  or,  again, 
the  comparison  of  Matt,  xxi.,  8  with  Mark  xi.,  8,  or  Mark  i.,16  with  Matt, 
iv.,  18,  he  affirms  that  in  one  the  sense  of  motion  is  always  inherent,  in  the 
other  of  rest.  *  On  Godliness,h.  viii.,  c.  3. 

Aa 


124      TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

there  is  also  implied  how  naturally  they  rise  one  out  of  an- 
other, and  that  they  have  a  causal  dependence  one  of  anoth- 
er." See  this  same  thought  beautifully  carried  out  in  detail 
by  Bengel,  in  loco. 

III.  Our  translators  do  not  always  give  the  true  force  of 
tenses,  moods,  and  voices. 

Oftentimes  the  present  tense  is  used  in  the  New  Testament, 
especially  by  St.  John  in  the  Apocalypse,  to  express  the  eter- 
nal Now  of  him  for  whom  there  can  be  no  past  and  no  fu- 
ture. It  must  be  considered  a  fault  when  this  is  let  go,  and 
exchanged  for  a  past  tense  in  our  version.  Take,  for  instance. 
Rev.  iv.,  5 :  "Out  of  the  throne  proceeded  lightnings,  and  thun- 
derings,  and  voices."  But  it  is  much  more  than  this;  not 
merely  at  that  one  moment  when  St.  John  beheld,  but  ever- 
more out  of  his  throne  proceed  {kKiroptvovTai)  these  symbols  of 
the  presence  and  of  the  terrible  majesty  of  God.  Through- 
out this  chapter,  and  at  chapter  i.,  14-16,  there  is  often  a 
needless,  and  sometimes  an  absolutely  incorrect,  turning  of 
the  present  of  eternity  into  the  past  of  time. 

Elsewhere  a  past  is  turned  without  cause  into  a  present. 
It  is  so  at  Acts  xxviii.,  4  :  "  No  doubt  this  man  is  a  murder- 
er, whom,  though  he  hath  escaped  the  sea,  yet  Vengeance 
suffereth  not  to  live."  A  fine  turn  in  the  exclamation  of  these 
barbarous  islanders  has  been  missed  in  our  version,  and  in 
all  the  English  versions  except  the  Geneva.  The  pappapoi, 
the  "  natives,"  as  I  think  the  Avord  might  have  been  fairly 
translated,  who  must  have  best  known  the  qualities  of  the 
vipers  then  existing  on  the  island,  are  so  confident  of  the 
deadly  character  of  that  one  which  has  fastened  itself  on 
Paul's  hand,  that  they  regard  and  speak  of  him  as  one  already 
dead,  and  in  this  sense  use  a  past  tense ;  he  is  one  whom 
"Vengeance  suffered  not  {ovk  tiacrn)  to  live."  Bengel :  "A^bn 
sivit ;  jam  nullum  putant  esse  Paulum;"  De  Wette;  "nicht 
hat  leben  lassen."  Let  me  observe  here,  by  the  way,  that 
our  modern  editions  of  the  Bible  should  not  have  dropped 
the  capital  V  with  which  "  Vengeance"  was  spelt  in  the  ex- 


ON  SOME  ERRORS  OF  GREEK  GRAM3IAR.  i25 

cmplar  edition  of  1611.  These  islanders,  in  their  sinajDle  but 
most  truthful  moral  instincts,  did  not  contemplate  "Ven- 
geance," or  A/Vtj,  in  the  abstract,  but  personified  her  as  a  god- 
dess ;  and  our  translators,  who  are  by  no  means  prodigal  of 
their  capitals,  in  their  manner  of  spelling  the  word,  did  their 
best  to  mark  and  reproduce  this  personification  of  the  di- 
vine Justice,  although  the  carelessness  of  printers  has  since 
let  it  go. 

Elsewhere  there  is  confusion  between  the  uses  of  the  pres- 
ent and  the  perfect.  There  is  such,  for  example,  at  Luke 
xviii.,  12  :  "I  give  tithes  of  all  that  I  possess."  But  6W  crw- 
fiai  is  not "  all  that  I  possess^''  but  "  all  that  I  acquire'''  ("  quae 
mihi  acquire,  quae  mihi  redeunt").  The  Vulgate,  which  has 
"  possideo,"  shares,  perhaps  suggested,  our  error.  In  the  per- 
fect KeKT7]fj.ai  the  word  first  obtains  the  force  of  "I  possess," 
or,  in  other  words,  "I  have  acquired."*  The  Pharisee  would 
boast  himself  to  be,  so  to  say,  another  Jacob,  such  another  as 
he  who  had  said, "  Of  all  that  thoic  shalt  give  me,  I  will  sure- 
ly give  the  tenth  unto  thee"  (Gen.  xxviii.,  22  ;  comp.  xiv.,  20), 
a  careful  performer  of  that  precept  of  the  law  which  said, 
"Thou  shalt  truly  tithe  all  the  increase  of  thy  seed,  that  the 
field  bringeth  forth  year  by  year"  (Dent,  xiv.,  22) ;  but  change 
"acquire"  into  "possess,"  and  how  much  of  this  we  lose. 

We  must  associate  with  this  passage  another,  namely,  Luke 
xxi.,19:  "In  your  patience  possess  ye  your  souls;"  for  the 
same  correction  ought  there  to  find  place.  It  is  rather, "  In 
your  patience  make  ye  your  souls  your  own" — that  is,  "  In 
and  by  your  patience  or  endurance  acquire  your  souls  as 
something  which  you  may  indeed  call  your  own"  ("  salvas 
obtin^te").  Thus  Winer:  "  Durch  Ausdauer  erwerbt  euch 
cure  Seelen ;  'sie  werden  dann  erst  euer  wahres,  unverlier- 
bares  Eigenthum  werden."  It  is  noticeable  that  our  trans- 
lators have  corrected  the  "  possess"  of  all  the  preceding  ver- 
sions at  Matt.  X.,  9,  exchanging  this  for  the  more  accurate 
"provide"  (Krfjarjade),  or,  as  it  is  in  the  margin, " get," Avhich 
*  See  Winer,  Gramm.,  §  41,  4. 


126      TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

makes  it  strange  that  they  should  have  allowed  it  iu  these 
other  places  to  stand. 

Imperfects  lose  their  proper  force,  and  are  dealt  with  as 
aorists  and  perfects.  The  vividness  of  the  narration  often 
suffers  from  the  substitution  of  the  pure  historic  for  what 
may  be  called  the  descriptive  tense ;  as,  for  example,  at  Luke 
xiv.jV:  "He  put  forth  a  parable  to  those  that  were  bidden 
when  he  marked  how  they  chose  out  the  chief  rooms."  Rea;d, 
"  how  they  were  choosing  out  {i^tKiyovTo)  the  chief  rooms" — 
the  sacred  historian  placing  the  Lord's  utterance  of  the  para- 
ble in  the  midst  of  the  events  which  he  is  describing.  So 
Acts  iii.j  1 :  "  Now  Peter  and  John  went  up  together  into  the 
Temple."  Read, "  loere  going  xtp'''  {livi^aivov).  Again,  Mark 
ii.,  18:  "And  the  disciples  of  John  and  of  the  Pharisees  used 
tofastP  'Rea.d,"  were  fasting^^  [Jiaay  rj^oreuoi/ree),  namely,  at 
that  very  time,  which  gives  a  special  vigor  to  their  remon- 
strances ;  they  were  keeping  a  fast  while  the  Lord's  disciples 
were  celebrating  a  festival.  The  incomplete  imperfect  sense, 
which  so  often  belongs  to  this  tense,  and  from  which  it  de- 
rives its  name,  they  often  fail  to  give ;  the  commencement 
of  a  work  which  is  not  brought  to  a  conclusion,  the  consent 
and  co-operation  of  another  party,  which  was  necessary  for 
its  completion,  having  been  withheld ;  in  such  cases  the  will 
is  taken  for  the  deed.*  Thus  Luke  i.,59 :  "And  they  called 
him  Zacharias."  It  is  not  so,  for  Elizabeth  would  not  allow 
this  name  to  be  given  him ;  but  with  the  true  force  of  the  in- 
complete imperfect  tense :  "And  they  were  calling  (craXowj') 
him  Zacharias."  Once  more,  Luke  v.,  6:  "And  their  net 
braJcey  Had  this  been  so,  they  would  scarcely  have  secured 
the  fishes  at  all.  Rather, "  was  in  the  act  of  breaking,"  or 
"was  at  the  point  to  break"  {luppy^yvvTo).  Other  passages 
where  they  do  not  give  the  force  of  the  imperfect,  but  deal 
with  it  as  though  it  had  been  a  perfect  or  an  aorist,  are  John 
iii.,22;  iv.,47;  vi.,  21;  Luke  xxiv.,  32  ;  Matt,  xiii.,  34 ;  Acts 
xi.,  20. 

*  Pee  Jelf 's  KUhner's  Grammar,  §  398,  2. 


ON  SOME  ERRORS  OF  GREEK  GRAMMAR.  i27 

Aorists  are  rendered  as  if  they  were  perfects,  and  perfects 
as  if  they  were  aorists.  Thus  we  have  an  example  of  the 
first,  Luke  i.,  19,  where  InctaTiiXriv  is  translated  as  though  it 
were  a7r£Vra\juai, " I  am  sent,"  instead  of  "I  loas  sent."  Ga- 
briel contemplates  his  mission,  not  at  the  moment  of  its  pres- 
ent fulfillment,  but  from  that  of  his  first  sending  forth  from 
the  presence  of  God.  Another  example  of  the  same  occurs 
at  2Pet.  i.,14:  "Knowing  that  shortly  I  must  put  off  this 
my  tabernacle,  even  as  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  shoiced 
me."  By  this  ^^  hath  showed  me"  Ave  lose  altogether  the 
special  allusion  to  an  historic  moment  in  the  apostle's  life,  to 
John  xxi.,  18,  19,  which  would  at  once  come  out  ifihijXuxri  juoi 
bad  been  rendered  "  showed  me."  Doubtless  there  are  pas- 
sages which  would  make  difficult  the  universal  application 
of  the  rule  that  perfects  should  be  translated  as  perfects,  and 
aorists  as  aorists:  thus  Luke  xiv.,  18, 19,  where  one  might 
hesitate  in  rendering  yyopacra  "  I  bought''''  instead  of  "  I  have 
bought  f  and  some  at  least  in  the  long  line  of  aorists,  tlc^affa 
tTEXEtujcTa,  l(pavipu)(Ta,  tXafiov  (ver.  4,  6,  8),  in  the  high-priestly 
prayer,  John  xvii.  Still,  on  these  passages  no  conclusion  can 
be  grounded  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  did  not 
always  obseiwe  the  distinction.* 

Again,  the  force  of  the  aorist  is  missed,  though  in  another 
way,  at  Mark  xvi.,  2,  where  avareiXavTog  tov  iiXiov  is  translated 
"  at  the  rising  of  the  sun."  It  can  only  be  "  when  the  sun 
teas  riseny  Did  the  anxiety  to  avoid  a  slight  seeming  dis- 
crepancy between  this  statement  and  that  of  two  other  evan- 
gelists (Matt,  xxviii.,  1 ;  John  xx.,  1)  modify  the  translation 
here  ? 

Examples,  on  the  other  hand,  of  perfects  turned  into  aorists 
are  frequent.  Thus,  at  Luke  xiii.,  2 :  "  Suppose  ye  that  these 
Galileans  were  sinners  above  all  the  Galileans,  because  they 
sxiffered  such  things  ?"  Rather, "  because  they  have  suffered 
(7r£7rov9a«7tj')  such  things."  Our  Lord  contemplates  the  catas- 
trophe in  which  they  perished,  not  as  something  belonging 
*  See  Winer,  Gramm.,  §  41,  5. 


128       TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

merely  to  the  historic  past,  Ibut  as  a  fact  reaching  into  the 
present,  still  vividly  presenting  itself  to  the  mind's  eye  of  his 
hearers. 

One  other  example  must  suffice.  In  that  great  doctrinal 
passage,  Col.  i.,  13-22,  St,  Paul  declares,  ver.  16,  that  "by 
Christ  were  all  things  createdP  The  aorist  kricrdi]  has  its 
right  force  given  to  it  here ;  but  the  apostle  in  a  most  re- 
markable wa^,  when  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse  he  re- 
sumes the  doctrine  of  the  whole,  changes  the  aorist  eKriadr) 
for  the  perfect  eK-irrTai.  And  why  ?  Because  he  is  no  longer 
looking  at  the  one  historic  act  of  creation,  but  at  the  perma- 
nent results  flowing  on  into  all  time  and  eternity  therefrom. 
Our  translators  have  not  followed  him  here,  but,  as  if  no 
change  had  been  made,  they  render  this  clause  also,  "All 
things  were  created  by  him  and  for  him,"  but  read  rather, 
"All  things  have  been  created  hj  him  and  for  him."* 

Imperfects  and  aorists  are  turned  without  necessity  into 
pluperfects.  It  is  admitted  by  all  that  an  aorist,  under  cer- 
tain conditions,  may  have  this  sense  of  a  past  behind  another 
past;t  nor,  according  to  some,  can  this  force  be  altogether 
denied  to  the  imperfect ;  but  a  pluperfect  force  is  given  in 
our  version  to  these  tenses  where  certainly  no  sort  of  neces- 
sity requires  it.  Thus,  for  the  words, "  because  he  had  done 
these  things  on  the  Sabbath"  (John  v.,  16),  read, "  because  he 
did  {eTToiei)  these  things  on  the  Sabbath."  And,  again,  in  the 
same  chapter  read, "  for  Jesus  convey ed  himself  aioai/^^  {i^iyev- 
<Tev) ;  that  is,  as  soon  as  this  discussion  between  the  Jews  and 
the  healed  man  arose,  not  "had  conveyed  himself  away'''  pre- 
viously, as  our  version  would  imply. 

Neither  do  our  translators  always  give  its  right  force  to  a 
middle  verb.     They  fail  to  do  so  at  Phil,  ii.,  15:  "Among 

*  The  fact  that  we  almost  all  learn  our  grammar  from  the  Latin,  and  that 
in  the  Latin  the  perfect  indicative  does  its  own  duty  and  that  of  the  aorist  as 
well,  renders  us  very  inobserA-ant  of  inaccuracies  in  this  particular  kind  till  we 
have  been  specially  trained  to  obsei-ve  them. 

t  What  these  conditions  are,  see  Winer's  Gravim.,  §  41,  5. 


ON  SOME  ERRORS  OF  GREEK  6RA3T3IAR.  129 

whom  ye  shine  as  lights  in  the  world."  To  justify  this  "2/e 
shine,''''  which  is  common  to  all  the  versions  of  the  English 
Hexapla,  St.  Paul  ought  to  have  written  (paiyere,  and  not  0at- 
veade,  as  he  has  written.  *a/r£ti',  indeed,  is  "  to  shine"  (John 
i.,  5  ;  2  Pet.  i.,  19;  Rev.  i.,  16),  but  (palyecTdai  "  to  appear"  (Matt, 
xxiii.,  27  ;  1  Pet.  iv.,  18 ;  James  iv.,  14),  It  is  worthy  of  note, 
that  while  the  Yulgate,  having  "  lucetis,"  shares  and  antici- 
pates our  error,  an  earlier  Italic  version  was  f  "ee  from  it,  as 
is  evident  from  the  verse  as  quoted  by  Augustme  {Enarr.  in 
^6'a.  cxlvi.,  4)  :  "In  quibus  a2')2^aretis  tanquam  luminaria  in 
mundo." 

Sometimes  the  force  of  a  passive  is  lost.  Thus  is  it  at  2 
Cor.  v.,  10:  "For  we  must  all  cqypear  before  the  judgment 
seat  of  Christ."  The  words  contain  a  yet  more  solemn  and 
awful  announcement  than  this :  "  For  Ave  must  all  he  made 
manifest  {jravTaQ  iifidg  (pat'epwdiivai  eel),  exhibited  as  what 
we  indeed  are,  displayed  in  our  true  colors,  the  secrets  of  our 
hearts  disclosed,  and  we,  so  to  speak,  turned  inside  out  (for 
the  word  means  nothing  less)  "  before  the  judgment  seat  of 
Christ."  There  is  often  reason  to  think  that  the  exposition 
of  Chrysostom  exercised  considerable  influence  on  our  trans- 
lators. Here  it  might  have  done  so  with  benefit ;  for,  com- 
menting on  these  words  {in  Cor. Horn.,  10),  he  says:  ov  yap 
TrapaffTijyai  ijfiaQ  aTrXwe  Set,  oXXa  Kai  (fiavEpwdfivai,  show- 
ing that  he  would  not  have  been  satisfied  with  what  our 
translators  have  here  done. 

"With  one  or  two  miscellaneous  observations  I  will  con- 
clude this  chapter.  It  would  be  very  impertinent  to  suppose 
that  our  translators,  who  numbered  in  their  company  many 
of  the  first  scholars  of  their  time,  were  not  perfectly  at  home 
in  the  use  of  Trac,  and  familiar  with  the  very  simple  modifica- 
tions of  its  meaning  as  employed  with  or  without  an  article, 
and  yet  it  must  be  owned  that  they  do  not  always  observe 
its  rules.     One  example  may  suflSce. 

Acts  X.,  12. — "Wherein  were  all  manner  of  four-footed 
beasts  of  the  "earth."    But  -n-avra  ra  re-pdiroda  can  not  possibly 


130       TEENCH  OX  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

have  the  meaning  ascribed  to  it  here.  Translate  rather, 
"  Wherein  were  all  the  four-footed  beasts  of  the  earth" — 
"  omnia  animalia,"  as  the  Vulgate  rightly  has  it.  Here  jDrob- 
ahly,  as  Winer  observes,  they  were  tempted  to  forsake  the 
more  accurate  rendering  from  an  unwillingness  to  ascribe 
something  which  seemed  to  them  like  exaggeration  to  the 
sacred  historian :  how,  they  said  to  themselves,  could  "  all 
the  four-footed  beasts  of  the  earth"  be  contained  in  that 
sheet?  For,  indeed,  this  shrinking  from  a  meaning  which  an 
accurate  translation  would  render  up  is  a  very  frequent  oc- 
casion of  mistranslation,  and  also  of  warped  exegesis.  It  is 
much  better,  however,  that  the  translator  should  go  forward 
on  his  task  -without  regard  to  such  considerations  as  these. 
The  Word  of  God  can  take  care  of,  and  vindicate  itself,  and 
does  not  need  to  be  thus  taken  under  man's  protection.* 

It  is  remarkable  how  little  careful  our  translators  are  to 
note  the  difference  between  the  verb  of  being  and  that  of  be- 
coming j  between  tt/xt  and  yiyova.  I  do  not  indeed  think  it 
possible  to  carry  out  the  distinction  between  dvai  and  yivta- 
6at  in  every  instance  without  occasional  awkwardnesses  of 
translation :  it  seems  to  me  that  Professor  Ellicott  has  not 
quite  escaped  these, Ephes.  v.,*?,  17 ;  and  that  we  must  recog- 
nize at  times  a  certain  idiomatic  use  of  ytVov  and  yiytrrde,  best 
represented  by  "  be"  and  "  be  ye."  Still  the  passages  are  nu- 
merous where  the  words  can  not  be  confounded,  as  our  trans- 

*  There  are  some  good  observations  on  this  matter  in  Laurence  Hum- 
phrey's excellent  treatise  Interpretatio  Linguarum,  seu  de  ratione  convertendi 
avctores  tam  sacros  quam  profanes.  Basileffi,  1559.  He  is  finding  fault  with 
those  who,  in  translating,  seek  to  mitigate  such  expressions  as  the  (tkXtjpvvh  of 
Rom,  ix.,  18,  irapiSwKE  of  Kom.  i.,  24,  iiacvkyKyc  of  Matt,  vi.,  13,  and  says, 
"Non  est  locus  hie  inteipretationibus  nostro  Marte  et  ingenio  confictis,  cum 
se  Spiritus  Sanctus  exponit,  optimus  magister  intei-pretandi,  cujus  linguam  fas 
non  est  homini  mutare  aut  temperare.  Satis  molliter  loquitur,  qui  cum  illo 
dure  loquitur.  Explicationis  varietas  relinquatur  cuivis  libera.  Interpres 
hanc  Ubertatein  si  tollat,  bono  jure  non  tollit,  sed  lectori facit  injuriam."  And 
elsewhere,  against  some  who  rendered  the  ■jrapelwKt  above  referred  to,  "per- 
misit,"he  observes,  "Kon  est  durum  quod  Spiritus  Sanctus  putarit  non  esse 
durum,  nee  frigidis  hominum  temperamentis  sermo  divinus  modificandus," 
p.  174. 


ON  SOME  ERRORS  OF  GREEK  GRAMMAR.  \z\ 

lators  have  confounded  them,  without  loss.  Thus,  at  Heb. 
v.,  11,  the  apostle  complains  of  the  difficulty  of  unfolding 
some  hard  ti'uths  to  those  whom  he  addresses, "  seeing  ye  are 
dull  of  hearing."  But  the  rebuke  is  sharper  than  this — "see- 
ing ye  have  become  dull  of  hearing"  [tird  vu)dpoi  y^yovart 
Toig  ctKoatc).  This  would  imply  that  it  was  not  so  once,  in 
the  former  days,  when  they  first  were  enlightened  (x.,  32), 
but  that  now  they  had  gone  back  from  that  liveliness  of  spir- 
itual apprehension  which  once  had  been  theirs  (see  Chrysos- 
tom).  The  Vulgate  has  it  rightly :  "Quoniam  imbecilles/ac^i 
estis  ad  audiendum ;"  being  followed  by  the  Rheims :  "  Be- 
cause ye  are  become  weak  to  hear;"  so,  too,De  Wette:  "Da 
ihr  trage  von  Verstande  geworclen  seicV^  Compai*e  the  next 
verse,  where  yeyoya-e  again  occurs,  and  where  the  force  of  it 
is  given.  At  Matt,  xxiv,,  32,  there  is  the  same  loss  of  the 
true  force  of  the  word.  Not  the  being  tender  of  the  branch 
of  the  fig-tree,  but  the-  becoming  tender,  that  is,  through  the 
returning  sap  of  spring,  is  the  sign  of  the  nearness  of  summer. 

Nor  are  the  occasions  wanting  when  the  maintenance  of 
the  distinction  is  far  more  important,  as  at  John  viii.,  58. 
They  make  no  attempt  to  preserve  there  the  antithesis,  dog- 
matically so  important, between  Abraham's  birth  in  time,  and 
Christ's  subsistence  through  eternity  {Tplv  'A/3paayu  yEvitrdai,  t'yw 
eljjLi).  How  this  should  have  been  effected  may  be  a  ques- 
tion ;  whether  as  Cranmer  has  done  it,  "  Ere  Abraham  was 
born,  I  am,"  or  as  the  Rhemish,  "  Before  that  Abraham  was 
made,  I  am,"  or  by  some  other  device ;  but  in  some  form  or 
other  it  should  assuredly  have  been  attempted.  In  the  Vul- 
gate, "  Antequam  Abraham ^ere^,  ego  sum."* 

In  other  points  our  translators  are  without  fault,  where  yet 
the  modern  copies,  by  careless  reproduction  of  their  work,  in- 
volve them  in  apparent  error,  which  indeed  is  none  of  theirs, 

*  Sydenham  (The  Arraignment  of  the  Arian,  p.  93)  puts  it  well:  ^^Was 
points  only  to  a  human  constitution;  I  am  to  a  divine  substance  [qy.,  sub- 
sistence] ;  and  therefore  the  original  hath  a  yevkaOai  for  Abraham,  and  an 
tlfii  for  Christ." 


132      TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

but  that  of  the  too  careless  guardians  of  their  text.  They 
have  their  own  burden  to  bear ;  they  ought  not  to  be  made 
to  bear  the  burden  of  others ;  but  they  do  so  in  more  places 
than  one.  Thus,  at  Matt,  xii.,  23,  correcting  all  our  previous 
translations,  they  gave  the  words  fxnn  ovtoq  ianv  6  vldg  AafiiB; 
with  perfect  accuracy :  "  Is  this  the  Son  of  David  ?"  fully 
understanding  that,  according  to  the  diiferent  idioms  of  the 
Greek  and  English,  the  negative  particle  of  the  original  was 
not  to  reappear  in  the  English ;  comp.  Acts  vii.,  42 ;  John 
viii,,  22 ;  xviii.,  35.  I  am  unable  to  say  at  what  time  the 
reading  which  appears  in  nearly  all  our  modern  Bibles, "  Is 
not  this  the  Son  of  David  ?"  first  crept  in ;  it  is  already  in 
Hammond,  165 9;  but  it  is  little  creditable  to  those  who  should 
have  kept  their  text  iuv-iolate,  that  they  have  not  exercised  a 
stricter  vigilance  over  it.  It  is  curious  that,  having  escaped 
error  here,  our  translators  should  yet  have  fallen  into  it  in 
the  exactly  similar  phrase  at  John  iv.,  29,  /u//ri  ovto^  tanv  6 
XpioTToe ;  where  they  do  render  "  Is  not  this  the  Christ  ?"  but 
should  have  rendered  "  Is  this  the  Christ  ?"  or  "  Can  this  be 
the  Christ?"  The  Samaritan  woman,  in  her  joy,  as  speaking 
of  a  thing  too  good  to  be  true,  which  she  will  suggest,  but 
dare  not  absolutely  affirm,  asks  of  her  fellow-countrymen," Is 
this  the  Christ? — can  this  be  he  whom  we  have  looked  for 
so  long  ?" — expecting  in  reply,  not  a  negative,  but  an  affirm- 
ative answer. 

Let  me  take  this  occasion  of  obsei'ving  that  elsewhere  we 
have  to  complain  of  a  like  cai'elessness.  Thus  there  are  pas- 
sages in  which  the  punctuation  of  the  exemplar  edition  of 
1611  gave  an  accurate  rendering,  while  the  subsequent  aban- 
donment of  that  punctuation  lends  an  appearance  of  incor- 
rectness to  our  version  from  which  it  is  really  free.  Thus,  in 
modern  editions,  we  read  at  John  xviii.,  3,  "Judas  then,  hav- 
ing received  a  band  of  men  and  officers  from  the  chief  priests 
and  Pharisees,  cometh."  This  would  make  the  traitor  to  have 
received  the  "band  of  men"  aiid  the  "officers"  alike  from 
the  chief  priests  and  Pharisees.     Such  was  not  the  case ;  the 


OiV^  SOME  ERRORS  OF  GREEK  GRAMMAR.  133 

"  band  of  men"  Avere  the  Roman  soldiers,  whom  he  received 
from  the  Roman  authorities,  while  the  "  officers"  onlj^,  or  offi- 
cials, as  we  should  now  say,  he  received  from  the  chief  priests 
and  Pharisees.  In  the  original  edition  there  was  a  comma 
after  "  band  of  men,"  which  has  subsequently  been  dropped, 
and  then  all  was  correct. 

Being  on  this  subject,  I  will  call  attention  to  another  pas- 
sage where  the  original  punctuation  has  been  abandoned.  It 
is  Heb.  xii.,23.  All  who  have  critically  studied  this  epistle 
know  that,  in  respect  of  this  verse  and  that  preceding,  there 
is  a  much-debated  question  how  the  diffijrent  clauses  should 
be  divided.  Now  I  do  not  undertake  to  affirm  that  our  trans- 
lators were  right,  though  there  is  much  to  say  for  the  scheme 
of  the  passage  Avhich  they  evidently  favor;  but  when  they 
punctuated  this  verse  as  follows, "  To  the  general  assembly, 
and  Church  of  the  first-born  which  are  written  in  heaven," 
they  meant  something  different  from  that  which  the  verse  as 
it  is  now  punctuated, "  To  the  general  assembly  and  Church 
of  the  first-born,  which  are  written  in  heaven,"  means ;  and 
their  punctuation  should  not  have  been  disturbed.  The  dis- 
turbing of  it  is,  in  fact,  an  unacknowledged  revision  of  the 
translation. 


134      TRENCH  ON  A  JJTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ON   SOME    QUESTIONABLE    RENDERINGS    OP   WORDS. 

There  are  a  certain  number  of  passages  in  which  no  one 
can  charge  our  translators  with  error,  the  version  they  have 
given  being  entirely  defensible,  and  numbering  among  its 
upholders  some,  it  may  be  many,  well  worthy  to  be  heard ; 
while  yet  another  version,  on  the  whole,  will  commend  itself 
as  preferable  to  that  which  they  have  adopted.  I  shall  pro- 
ceed to  adduce  a  few  such  passages,  where,  to  me  at  least,  it 
seems  there  is  a  higher  probability,  in  some  a  far  higher,  in 
favor  of  some  other  translation  rather  than  of  that  which 
they  have  admitted. 

Matt,  vi.,  27 ;  comp.  Luke  xii.,  25. — "  Which  of  you  by  tak- 
ing thought  can  add  one  cubit  unto  his  stature  f''  Erasmus 
was,  I  believe,  the  first  who  suggested  that  likida  here  was 
not  "  stature,"  but  "  length  of  life."  With  him  it  was  no 
more  than  a  suggestion ;  but  it  has  since  found  acceptance 
with  many,  with  Hammond,  Wolf,  Wetstein,  Olshausen,  Mey- 
er, and  others.  While  the  present  translation  may  be  abun- 
dantly justified — Fritzsche  stands  out  for  it  still — yet  this 
certainly  appears  far  preferable  to  me,  and  for  the  following 
reasons :  a.  In  that  natural  rhetoric  of  which  our  Lord  was 
the  great  master,  he  would  not  have  named  a  cubit,  which  is 
about  a  foot  and  a  half,  but  some  very  small  measure,  and  re- 
minded his  hearers  that  they  could  not  add  even  this  to  their 
stature.  It  Avould  have  scarcely  been  in  the  spirit  of  this 
rhetoric  to  ask, "  Which  of  you  with  all  his  caring  can  make 
himself  a/oo«  taller  than  God  has  made  him  ?"  Rather  Christ 
would  have  demanded,  "  Which  of  you  with  all  his  anxious 
care  can  add  an  inch  or  a  hair's  breadth  {kXa-xiarov,  Luke  xii., 
26)  to  his  stature  ?"    /3.  Men  do  not  practically  take  thought 


ON  SOME  QUESTIONABLE  EENDEEINGS  OF  WORDS.      ]  35 

about  adding  to  their  stature ;  it  is  not  an  object  of  anxiety 
to  one  in  a  tiiousand  to  be  taller  than  God  has  made  him ; 
this  could  scarcely,  therefore,  be  cited  as  one  of  the  vain  so- 
licitudes of  men.  y.  On  the  other  hand,  every  thing  exactly 
fits  when  we  understand  our  Lord  to  be  asking  this  question 
about  life  and  the  possibility  of  adding  the  least  fraction  to 
its  length.  The  cubit,  which  is  much  when  compared  with  a 
man's  stature,  is  infinitesimally  little,  and  therefore  most  ap- 
propriate when  compared  to  his  length  of  life,  that  life  being 
contemplated  as  a  course,  or  IpofioQ  (2  Tim.  iv.,  7),  which  he 
may  attempt,  but  ineffectually,  to  prolong.  3.  And  then,  far- 
ther, this  prolonging  of  life  is  something  which  men  do  seek, 
striving  by  various  precautions,  by  solicitous  care,  to  length- 
en the  period  of  their  mortal  existence,  to  which  yet  they 
can  not  add  so  much  as  a  single  cubit  more  than  has  been 
apportioned  to  it  by  God. 

Luke  ii.,49. — "Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  ahoiit  my  Fa- 
ther''s  business  .^"  But  h  rolg  rov  UarpoQ  will  as  well  mean 
"  in  my  Father's  house ;"  and  if  the  words  will  mean  this  as 
well,  they  wdll  surely  mean  it  better.  "We  shall  thus  have  a 
more  direct  answer  on  the  part  of  the  child  Jesus  to  the  im- 
plied rebuke  of  his  blessed  mother's  words, "  Behold,  thy  fa- 
ther and  I  have  sought  thee  sorrowing ;"  to  which  he  answers, 
"  How  is  it  that  ye  sought  me  ?" — that  is,  in  any  other  place? 
"Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  ifi  my  Father'' s  house — here  in 
the  Temple  ?  and  here,  without  lengthened  seeking,  ye  might 
have  found  me  at  once."  There  was  a  certain  misconcep- 
tion in  respect  of  his  person  and  chai'acter  which  had  led 
them  to  look  for  him  in  other  places  of  resort  rather  than  in 
the  Temple. 

John  xii.,  6. — "He  was  a  thief,  and  had  the  bag,  and  bare 
what  w^as  put  therein."  I  can  not  but  think  that  it  was  St. 
John's  intention  to  say  not  merely  that  Judas  "  bare,"  but 
that  he  "bare  aio«y,"  purloined,  or  pilfered  what  was  put  into 
the  common  purse.  It  seems  a  tautology  to  say  that  he  "had 
the  bag,  and  bare  what  was  put  therein,"  unless  indeed  it  is 


136       TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

said  that  the  latter  clause  was  introduced  to  explain  the  op- 
portimities  which  he  enjoyed  of  playing  the  thief;  hardly,  as 
it  appears  to  me,  a  sufficient  justification.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  use  of /Baorai^ft)',  not  in  the  sense  of'portare,"  but 
of  "  auferre,"  is  frequent ;  it  is  so  used  by  Josephus,  Antiq. 
xiv.,  7, 1,  and  in  the  New  Testament,  John  xx.,  15,  and  such, 
I  am  persuaded,  is  the  use  of  it  here.  We  note  that  already, 
in  Augustine's  time,  the  question  had  arisen  which  was  the 
right  way  to  deal  with  the  words ;  for,  commenting  on  the 
"  portabat"  which  he  found  in  his  Italic,  as  it  has  kept  its 
place  in  the  Vulgate,  he  asks, "  Portabat,  an  exportabat  ?  Sed 
ministerio  portabat,  furto  exportabat."  Here  he  might  seem 
to  leave  his  own  interpretation  of  the  passage  undecided; 
not  so,  however,  at  Ep>.  108,3  :  "Ipsi  [apostoli]  de  illo  scrip- 
serunt  quod  fur  erat,  et  omnia  qua3  raittebantur  de  dominicis 
loculis  auferehaty  After  all  is  said,  there  will  probably  al- 
ways remain  upholders  of  one  translation  and  upholders  of 
the  other,  yet  to  my  mind  the  probabilities  are  much  in  favor 
of  that  version  which  I  observe  that  the"P"'ive  Clergymen" 
have  also  adopted. 

Acts  xvii.,  1 8.—"  What  will  this  lahhler  say  ?"  "  Babbler" 
here  is  very  well,  and  yet  I  can  not  but  feel  that  "  chatterer" 
is  the  word.  It  unites  by  a  singular  felicity  the  two  mean- 
ings that  meet  in  oxfpjuoXtJyoc,  being,  like  it,  at  once  the  name 
of  a  bird,  and  a  name  given  to  a  slight  idle  talker.  ^.Trepfio- 
XvyoQ  is  properly  a  little  bird,  so  called  from  its  gathering  up 
of  seeds.  It  is  then  by  transfer,  1st,  a  mean  person,  who  gets 
his  living  somewhat  as  this  bird  does,  haunts  corn-markets 
and  other  places  of  resort  for  the  gathering  up  of  the  offals 
and  leavings  there — like  Autolycus,  "  a  picker  up  of  uncon- 
sidered trifles ;"  2dly,  one  who  idly  chatters  as  this  bird  does. 
Some  lines  of  Shakespeare  so  curiously  illustrate  this  (nrEpfxo- 
Xoyoc,  even  to  the  image  on  which  the  word  rests,  that  I  can 
not  resist  quoting  them.    Of  a  slight  talkative  person  it  is  said, 

"This  fellow  pecks  up  wit  as  pigeons  peas, 
And  utters  it  again  when  God  doth  please. 


O.V  SOME  QUEiiTI02fABLE  MENDERINOS  OF  WORDS.      137 

He  is  wit's  peddler,  and  retails  his  wares 

At  wakes  and  wassails,  meetings,  markets,  fairs."* 

At  the  same  time,  it  must  always  remain  a  question  whether, 
leaving  this  of  babbling  or  chattering  altogether  out,  "  pal- 
try fellow,"  or  "  base  fellow,"  as  in  our  margin,  would  not 
better  express  the  intention  of  the  word.f  The  curious  and 
barbarous  "  seminiverbius"  of  the  Vulgate,  which  reappears 
as  "  word-sower"  in  the  Rhemish,  rests  evidently  on  a  mis- 
reading of  the  word.  It  should  be  aTreipoXo-yog — though  in- 
deed XoyofTTTopoQ  is  the  form  which  the  word  must  have  as- 
sumed to  justify  this. 

Rom.  i.,  26, 27. — I  speak  with  hesitation,  yet  incline  strong- 
ly to  think  that  in  this  awful  passage,  where  St.  Paul  dares 
to  touch  on  two  of  the  worst  enormities  of  the  heathen  world, 
and  with  purest  lips  to  speak,  and  that  with  all  necessary 
plainness,  of  the  impurest  things,  we  should  have  done  well 
if  we  had  followed  even  to  the  utmost  where  he  would  lead 
us.  For  "  men"  and  "  women,"  as  often  as  the  words  occur 
in  these  verses,  I  should  wish  to  see  substituted  "  males"  and 
"  females ;"  tipo-ej/ec  and  d{]\eiai  are  throughout  the  words  which 
St.Paul  employs.  It  is  true  that  something  must  be  indulged 
to  the  delicacy  of  modern  Christian  ears ;  our  translators 
have  evidently  so  considered  in  dealing  with  more  than  one 
passage  in  the  Old  Testament ;  but,  reading  these  verses  over 
with  this  substitution,  while  they  gain  in  emphasis,  while  they 
represent  more  exactly  the  terrible  charge  which  St.  Paul 
brings  against  the  cultivated  world  of  heathendom,  they  do 
not  seem  to  me  to  acquire  any  such  painful  explicitness  as 
they  ought  not  to  have,  hardly  more  of  this  than  they  pos- 
sessed before. 

*  Love's  Labor's  Lost,  Act  v.,  sc.  1. 

t  See  an  excellent  article  on  airtpfioKoyoQ  in  Suicer's  Thesaurus.  It  is  to 
this  conclusion  that  Boisius,  in  a  learned  note  in  his  able  work,  Veteris  Inter- 
pretis  cum  Beta  aliisque  Recentioribus  Collatio,  p.  428,  arrives :  ' '  Pauhis  arrtp- 
^oXoyoc  audit  a  philosophis  Atheniensibus  non  ut  locutuleius  aut  blaterator 
aliquis,  sed  ut  homo  tenuissimce  fortuna;,  parumque  splendide  vestitus.  Est 
enim  convicium  in  viles  potius  quam  verbosos." 


138       TREXCE  OY  A  UTH.  VEESION  OF  XEW  TFSTAMEXT. 

1  Cor.  xiii.,  12. — "For  now  we  see  through  a  glass  (a  iam- 
Tpov),  darkly,"  I  can  not  but  think  that,  for  the  avoiding  of 
misconception,  it  would  have  been  preferable, "  For  now  we 
see  bi/  a  glass,  darkly,"  marking  so  that  cm  is  here  instru- 
mental. For  what  is  the  natural  conclusion  of  every  one 
who,  without  reference  to  the  Greek,  hears  or  reads  the 
words  as  they  now  stand?  What  can  it  be  but  that  they 
express  an  imperfect  seeing  through  some  dim,  only  semi- 
transparent  medium,  as  talc,  horn,  crystal,  lapis  specularis,  or 
the  like,  such  as  did  for  the  ancients  that  service  which  glass 
now  so  much  better  accomplishes  for  us?  This,  however,  it 
is  needless  to  say,  would  be  tioTrrpa  or  Zionrpovy  while  'itronrpov 
{=KuTowTpov)  can  mean  only  a  looking-glass;  and  when  we 
remember  the  polished  metallic  mirrors,  which  were  the  only 
ones  which  antiquity  knew,  and  the  dim,  obscure  awavyaa^a^ 
Avhich  was  all  that  they  could  have  given  back,  we  shall  feel 
the  exquisite  fitness  of  this  image,  both  in  respect  of  the  in- 
distinctness of  the  seeing,  and  in  respect  of  its  being,  as  is 
well  said  in  the  passage  which  follows, "no  immediate  vis- 
ion." That  citation  is  drawn  from  an  old  English  divine, 
less  known  than  he  deserves,  and  is  much  to  the  point: 
"  Some  that  would  be  more  critical  than  they  need  would 
fain  show  us  a  difierence  between  taoTr-poy  and  KuroTTpov.  Ka- 
roTTTpov  indeed  with  them  is  a  looking-glass,  but  taoTrrpov  is 
some  other  glass ;  either  such  a  one  as  is  for  the  help  of  weak 
and  aged  eyes,  and  then  'tis,  we  see  through  spectacles ;  or 
else  such  as  presents  the  object  though  afar  off,  and  so  'tis, 
we  see  through  a  perspective.  The  Vulgar  Latin,  ^/«a«  will 
have  it  ^:>er  transennam, '  through  a  lattice,'  as  the  Spouse  in 
the  Canticles  is  said  to  flourish  through  the  lattices.  And 
all  these  urge  the  force  of  the  preposition  Zi  hoTrrpov,  we  see 
through  a  glass  or  through  a  lattice.  But  they  might  easily 
know  that  "hi  iaov-pov  here  is  the  same  as  kv  kalmrpw ;  and 
though  it  be  true  that  KuToirrpov  be  the  more  usual  word  for 
a  looking-glass,  yet  it  is  true  that  laoizTpov  signifies  the  same. 
Hesychius  makes  them   synonymous,  and  the  word  is  but 


ox  SOME  QUESTIOXABLE  BENDERINOS  OF  WORDS.      139 

once  more  used  in  the  New  Testament,  James  i.,  23,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  there  'tis  taken  for  a  looking- 
glass.  Well,  then,  our  dark,  imperfect  knowledge  of  God 
here  is  thus  set  forth  by  seeing  in  a  glass,  because  it  is  no 
immediate  vision ;  the  object  is  not  primarily  and  immedi- 
ately presented  to  the  eye,  but  by  way  of  resultancy  and  me- 
dlante  sj^ecido,  by  the  conveyance  of  the  looking-glass,  Avhich 
is  a  silent  interpreter  of  the  object.  And  such  is  our  knowl- 
edge of  God  here,  and  such  our  communion  with  him ;  only 
some  broken  beams  of  glory,  some  glimpses  of  his  presence 
scattered  here  and  there,  in  this  ordinance  and  in  that — 
glasses  of  his  own  making,  means  of  his  proper  institution."* 
2  Cor.  ii.,14. — "Now  thanks  be  unto  God,  which  always 
caiiseth  us  to  triumph  in  Christ."  Here,  too,  our  translators 
may  be  right,  and,  if  they  are  wrong,  it  is  in  good  company. 
I  must  needs  think  that  for  "  causeth  us  to  triumph"  Ave 
should  read  "  leadeth  us  in  triumph  ;"  and  that  the  Vulgate, 
Avhen  it  rendered  Spta/x/Beuwi/  j/jude  "  qui  triumphat  nos,"  and 
Jerome  (which  is  the  same  thing)  "  qui  triumphat  de  nobis," 
though  even  he  has  failed  to  bring  out  his  meaning  with 
clearness,  were  right.  Qpia/jpeveiy  occurs  but  on  one  other 
occasion  in  the  New  Testament  (Col.  ii.,  15).  No  one  there 
doubts  that  it  means  "to  lead  in  triumph," "to  make  a  show 
of,"  as  vanquished  and  subdued  ;  and  it  is  hard  to  withdraw 
this  meaning  from  it  here,  being  as  it  also  is  the  only  mean- 
ing of  the  Avord  in  classical  Greek;  thus  Plutarch,  T/ies.  et 
Horn.,  iv.:  (jarnXs'ig  tdpiafxfDEvae  mi  »/7e/xdmc,"he  led  kings  and 
captains  in  triumph ;"  and  see  other  examples  in  Wetstein. 
But,  it  may  be  asked,  what  will  St.  Paul  mean  by  the  decla- 
ration "  who  every  where  leadeth  us  in  triumph  in  Christ  ?" 
The  meaning  is,  indeed,  a  very  grand  one.  St.  Paul  did  not 
feel  it  inconsistent  Avith  the  profoundest  humility  to  regard 
himself  as  a  signal  trophy  and  token  of  God's  victorious  poAV- 
er  in  Christ.  Lying  Avith  his  face  upon  the  ground,  he  had 
anticipated,  though  in  another  sense,  the  Avords  of  another 
*  Culvei-well,  Spiritual  Opticks,  p.  1 73. 
Bb 


140       TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

fighter  against  God,  "Vicisti,  Galila?e ;"  and  now  his  Al- 
mighty Conqueror  was  leading  him  about  through  all  the 
cities  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  world,  an  illustrious  testimo- 
ny of  his  power  at  once  to  subdue  and  to  save.  The  foe  of 
Ciirist  was  now,  as  he  gloried  in  naming  himself,  the  servant 
of  Christ,  and  this,  his  mighty  transformation,  God  was  mak- 
ing manifest  to  the  glory  of  his  name  in  every  place.  The 
attempt  of  some  to  combine  the  meanings  of  "  being  led  in 
triumph,"  which  they  feel  that  the  word  demands,  and  "  tri- 
umphing," or  "  being  made  to  triumph,"  which  it  seems  to 
them  the  sense  demands,  is  in  my  judgment  an  attempt  to 
reconcile  irreconcilable  images ;  as,  for  instance,  when  Stan- 
ley says,  "The  sense  of  conquest  and  degradation  is  lost  in 
the  more  general  sense  of 'making  us  to  share  this  triumjjh.' " 
But  in  the  literal  triumph,  who  so  pitiable,  so  abject,  so  for- 
lorn as  the  captive  chief  or  king,  the  Jugurtha  or  Vercingeto- 
rix,  doomed  often,  as  soon  as  he  had  graced  the  show,  to  a 
speedy  and  miserable  death  ?  But  it  is  not  with  God  as 
with  man ;  for  while  to  be  led  in  triumph  of  men  is  the  most 
miserable,  to  be  led  in  triumph  of  God,  as  the  willing  trophy 
of  liis  power,  is  the  most  glorious  and  blessed  lot  which  could 
fall  to  any ;  and  it  is  this,  I  am  persuaded,  which  the  apostle 
claims  for  his  own. 

2  Cor.  ii.,  17. — "  For  we  are  not  as  many,  ichich  corrupt  the 
Word  of  God."  Doubtless  there  is  much  to  be  said  in  favor 
of  this  version  of  tcaTrrjXevot'Tec  Tov  \6yov  rov  Qtov.  KnirrjXeveiv 
is  often  to  "  adulterate,"  vodeveir,  as  Chrysostora  expounds  it, 
"  to  mingle  false  with  true,"  as  the  wittijXoc,  or  petty  huckster, 
would  frequently  do.  Still  the  matter  is  by  no  means  so 
clear  in  favor  of  this  meaning  of  icaTrrjXsveiy,  and  against  the 
other, "to  make  a  traffic  of,"  as  some  in  later  times  would 
have  it ;  and  the  words  it,  elXiKpiveiae,  which  Meyer  conceives 
decisive,  seem  to  me  rather  an  argument  the  other  way. 
What  so  natural  as  that  St.  Paul  should  put  back  the  charge 
of  making  a  traffic  with  the  Word  of  God ;  above  all,  seeing 
how  earnestly  elsewhere  in  this  epistle  he  clears  himself  from 


ON  SOME  QUESTIONABLE  RENDERINGS  OF  WORDS.      141 

similar  charges  (xii,,  14, 17)  ?  I  believe,  Avben  Tyndale  ren- 
dered KaTrr\\(.vtiv  here, "  to  chop  and  change  with,"  he  was  on 
the  right  track ;  and  many  will  remember  the  remarkable 
passage  in  Bentley's  Sermon  upon  Popery^  which  is  so  strong 
in  this  view  that,  long  as  it  is,  I  can  not  forbear  to  quote  it : 
"  Our  English  translators  have  not  been  very  happy  in  their 
version  of  this  passage.  We  are  not,  says  the  apostle,  KaTrjj- 
\evovTiQ  Tov  \6yov  rov  Qeov,  which  our  translators  have  render- 
ed 'We  do  not  corrupt'  or  (as  in  the  margin)  deal  deceitfully 
Avith  'the  Word  of  GodV  They  were  led  to  this  by  the  i3ar- 
allel  place,  c.  iv.  of  this  epistle,  \ei:  2, '  not  walking  in  crafti- 
ness,' /iTj^e  doXovvTSQ  TovXoyoi'  rov  Gtou, 'nor  handling  the  Word 
of  God  deceitfully;'  they  took  KairriXevov-EQ  and  coXovv-eq  in 
the  same  adequate  notion,  as  the  vulgar  Latin  had  done  be- 
fore them,  which  expresses  both  by  the  same  word,  aclulter- 
antes  verbum  Dei;  and  so,  likewise,  Hesychius  makes  them 
synonyms,  iicKairriKivEiv^  coXovv.  AoXoDi',  indeed,  is  fitly  render- 
ed adulterare ;  so  coXovv  tov  ■)(pv(Tdv,  rov  olrov,  to  adulterate 
gold  or  wine  by  mixing  worse  ingredients  with  the  metal  or 
liquor.  And  our  translators  had  done  well  if  they  had  ren- 
dered the  latter  passage,  not  adulterating,  not  sophisticating 
the  Word.  But  Ka-nrriXtvov-iq  in  our  text  has  a  complex  idea 
and  a  wider  signification  ;  KuirriXeveiv  always  comprehends  lo- 
Xovv,  but  coXovv  never  extends  to  Kairj]Xeveiv,  which,  besides 
the  sense  of  adulterating,  has  an  additional  notion  of  unjust 
lucre,  gain,  profit,  advantage.  This  is  plain  from  the  word 
KUTTjjXoc,  a  calling  always  infamous  for  avarice  and  knavery : 
pei-fidus  hie  caupo,  says  the  poet,  as  a  general  character. 
Thence  tcairrjXeviiy,  by  an  easy  and  natural  metaphor,  was  di- 
verted to  other  expressions  where  cheating  and  lucre  were 
signified :  KaTrrfXEveiv  TOV  Xoyov,  says  the  apostle  here,  and  the 
ancient  Greeks,  KaTrrjXeveiv  Tag  clicac^  Tt)v  etpi'ivrjy,  Tt)v  (ropiav.  rh 
fiadt)ixaTa,  to  corrupt  and  sell  justice,  to  barter  a  negotiation 
of  peace,  to  prostitute  learning  and  philosophy  for  gain. 
Cheating,  we  see,  and  adulterating  is  part  of  the  notion  of 
KuirriXeveiv,  but  the  principal  essential  of  it  is  sordid  lucre. 


142       TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

So  cauponavi  in  the  famous  passage  of  Ennius,  where  Pyrrhus 

refuses  the  offer  of  a  ransom  for  his  captives,  and  restores 

them  gratis : 

"  '  Non  mi  aurum  posco,  nee  mi  pretiam  dederitis, 
Non  cauponanti  bellum,  sed  belligeranti.' 

And  so  the  fathers  expound  this  place.  ...  So  that,  in  short, 
what  St.  Paul  says,  KUTrrfKivovTiQ  tov  \6yor,  might  be  expressed 
in  one  classic  word — XoyijxTzopoi,  or  XoyoTrpdrat,  where  the  idea 
of  gain  and  profit  is  the  chief  part  of  the  signification.  Where- 
fore, to  do  justice  to  our  text,  we  must  not  stop  lamely  with 
our  translators, '  corrupters  of  the  Word  of  God,'  but  add  to 
it  as  its  plenary  notion,  'corrupters  of  the  Word  of  God /or 
filthy  lucre.''  "* 

Col.  ii,,8. — "BcAvare  lest  any  man  spoil  yoxi  through  phi- 
losophy and  vain  deceit."  This  translation  may  very  well 
hold  its  place .  ffuXaywyt Tr  does  mean  to  rob  or  sj:)oil ;  this, 
however,  is  its  secondary  meaning ;  its  first,  and  that  which 
agrees  with  its  etymology  {pvXov  and  ayw),  would  be,  "  to 
lead  away  the  spoil,"  "pra^dam  abigere;"  and  certainly  the 
warning  would  be  more  emphatic  if  we  understood  it  as  a 
warning  lest  they  should  become  themselves  the  spoil  or 
booty  of  these  false  teachers :  "  Beware  lest  any  man  inake 
a  booty  of  you^  lead  you  away  as  his  spoil,  through  j^hiloso- 
phy  and  vain'  deceit."  Bengel :  "  ervXaywywj^,  qui  non  solum 
de  vobis,  sed  vos  ijysos  spolium  faciat." 

Col.  ii.,  23. — "Which  things  have  indeed  a  show  of  wisdom 
in  will- worship,  and  humility,  and  neglecting  of  the  body, 
not  in  any  honor  to  the  satisfying  of  the  flesh!'''  The  first 
part  of  this  verse,  itself  not  veiy  easy,  appears  to  me  to  be 
excellently  rendered  in  our  version.  Perhaps,  were  it  to  do 
again,  instead  of  "  a  shoio  of  wisdom,"  "  a  reputation  of  wis- 
dom" would  more  exactly  express  Xdyoj'  (xopiac;  and  there  may 
be  a  question  whether  "  neglecting"  is  quite  strong  enough 
for  cKpeicia,  whether  "  punishing"  or  "  not  sparing,"  which  are 
both  suggested  in  the  margin,  would  not,  one  or  the  other, 
*  TFor^-s,vol.iii.,p.  242. 


ON  SOME  QUESTIONABLE  RENDERINGS  OF  WORDS.      143 

have  been  well  introduced  into  the  text.  But  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  verse,  where  its  chief  difficulties  reside,  our  trans- 
lators leave  us  in  some  doubt  as  regards  the  exact  meaning 
which  the  passage  had  for  them.  About  the  Geneva  Version 
I  have  no  doubt.  Its  authors,  evidently  under  the  leading 
of  Beza,  have  seized  the  right  meaning :  "  [yet  are]  of  no 
value,  [but  appei'taiu  to  those  things]  wherewith  the  flesh  is 
crammed."  At  the  same  time,  their  version  is  too  paraphras- 
tic, the  words  which  I  have  inclosed  within  brackets  having 
no  corresponding  words  in  the  original.  -  Did  our^  translators 
mean  the  same  thing  ?  I  am  inclined  to  think  not,  else  they 
would  have  placed  a  comma  after  "  honor ;"  but  that  rather 
tliey,  in  agreement  with  many  of  the  best  interpreters  of 
their  time,  understood  the  verse  thus :  "  Which  things  have 
a  show  of  wisdom,  etc.,  but  are  not  in  any  true  honor,  as 
things  which  serve  to  the  satisfying  of  the  just  needs  of  the 
body."  If  this  be,  as  I  feel  pretty  sm-e  it  is,  their  meaning, 
there  may  be  urged  against  it  that  TrXrjfffiovt]  has  a  constant 
sense  of  filling  overmuch,  or  stuffing  (Isa.  i.,14;  Psa.  cv.,16; 
Ezek.  xvi.,49);  and  followed  by  aapKoe,  could  scarcely  have 
any  other  sense;  it  being  impossible  that  (rap^  here  can  be 
used  in  an  honorable  intention  and  as  equivalent  to  ctw/xo,  but 
only  in  the  constant  Pauline  sense  of  the  flesh  and  mind  of 
the  flesh  as  opposed  to  the  spirit.  Some  rendering  which 
should  express  what  the  Geneva  Version  expresses,  but  in 
happier  and  tonciser  terms,  is  that  which  should  be  aimed 
at  here.  "  A  golden  sentence,"  as  he  calls  it,  which  Bengel 
quotes  from  the  Commentary  of  Hilary  the  Deacon  on  this 
passage, "  Sagina  carnalis  sensils  traditio  humana  est,"  shows 
that  this  interpretation  of  it  was  not  unknown  in  antiquity. 

1  Tim,  vi.,  8. — "Having' food  and  raiment,  let  us  be  there- 
with content."  Would  it  not  be  better  to  translate, "  Hav- 
ing food  and  coverinff,\et  us  be  therewith  content?"  It  is 
possible  that  St. Paul  had  only  raiment  in  his  eye;  and  nicE- 
vatTfxa  is  sometimes  used  in  this  more  limited  sense  (Plato, 
Polit,  2*79,  d) ;  but  seeing  that  it  may  very  well  include,  and 


144       TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

does  very  often  include,  habitation,*  this  more  general  word, 
which  it  would  have  been  still  free  for  those  Avho  liked  to  un- 
derstand as  "  raiment"  alone,  appears  to  me  preferable.  The 
Vulgate,  which  translates  "Ilabentes  alimenta  et  qiiibus  teg- 
amur^''  and  De  Wette,  "Bcdeckung,"  give  the  same  extent 
to  the  word. 

Heb.  ii.,16. — "For  verily  he  tooJc  oiot  on  him  tJie  nature  of 
angels,  but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham."  It  is  well 
known  what  a  consent  of  ancient  interpreters  there  was  to 
the  fact  that  this  verse  contained  an  express  allusion  to  the 
Incarnation,  and  our  translators  are  here  only  true  to  the 
universal  exposition  of  their  age.  But  there  is  almost  an 
equally  universal  denial  on  the  part  of  modern  expositors 
that  there  is  here  any  reference  to  the  Incarnation,  but  only 
generally  to  the  fact  that  Christ  is  a  helper  of  men  and  not 
of  angels;  Castellio  being,  I  believe,  the  first  who  asserted 
that  grammatically  the  other  interpretation  Avould  not  stand ; 
and  already  we  find  in  South  a  very  clear  statement  of  what 
may  be  said,  and  said  justly,  against  the  traditional  exposi- 
tion, though  he  himself,  as  it  presently  appears,  is  not  pre- 
pared to  let  it  go.  I  will  quote  the  objections  as  he  puts 
them,  and  will  accept  them  rather  than  the  refutation  of 
them  which  he  afterward  supplies.  "As  for  the  words  that 
I  have  here  pitched  upon,  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  trans- 
lation represents  them  very  difierent  from  what  they  are  in 
the  original,  which  runs  thus:  Oh  yap  cii]wov  iwikafxfiuveTai  tovq 
ayyiXovg — where  we  find  that  what  we  render  by  the  preter 
tense  '  He  took,'  the  original  has  by  the  present,  *  He  takes ;' 
and  what  we  render  '  the  nature  of  angels,'  the  original  has 
only  TOVQ  ayyeXovc,  '  angelos.'  Neither  is  it  clear  that  '  to 
take  on  him'  or '  to  assume'  is  the  genuine  signification  oferrt- 
XafxjjciveTat.  This  text  is  generally  used  by  divines,  ancient 
and  modern,  to  prove  Christ's  Incarnation,  or  assuming  of  the 
human  nature,  notwithstanding  that  this  word  eTriXafxpaPErai 
(as  Camero  well  observes)  is  nowhere  else  in  Scripture  taken 

*  S/CETTijc  Sirruv  tlSog,  to  fiiv  taQrjg,  to  Se  oi'/cia.     Philo,  De  Vit.  Con.,  §  4. 


on  SOME  QUESTIONABLE  RENDERINGS  OF  WORDS      145 

ill  this  sense.  St.  Paul  uses  it  in  1  Tim.  vi.,19,but  with  him 
th'ere  it  signifies  '  to  apprehend,'  '  to  attain,'  or  compass  a 
thing.  But  its  chief  signification,  and  which  seems  most  suit- 
able to  this  place,  is  '  to  rescue  and  deliver,'  it  being  taken 
from  the  usual  manner  of  rescuing  a  thing,  namely,  by  catch- 
ing hold  of  it,  and  so  forcibly  wringing  it  from  the  adversa- 
ry ;  as  David,  when  he  rescued  the  lamb  from  the  bear  and 
the  lion's  mouth,  might  be  properly  said  linXafi^uveaQai.  And 
Grotius  observes  that  the  proper  sense  of  this  word  is  '  vin- 
dicare  seu  asserere  in  libertatera  manu  injecta.'  "* 

James  iii.,  5. — "  Behold  how  great  a  matter  a  little  fire 
kindleth !"  This  may  be  right.  Our  translators  have  the 
liigh  authority  of  St.  Jerome  on  their  side,  who  renders  {in 
JE^sai.^OQ):  "Parvus  ignis  quam  grandem  succcndit  materi- 
am;''''  and  compare  Ecclus.  xxviii.,  10;  yet  certainly  it  is 
much  more  in  the  spirit  and  temper  of  this  grand  imagina- 
tive passage  to  take  v\r]v  here  as  "  wood"  or  "  forest :"  "  Be- 
hold how  great  a  forest  a  little  spark  kindleth  !"  So  the  Vul- 
gate long  ago :  "  Ecce  quantus  ignis  quam  magnam  silvam 
incendit !"  and  De  Wette :  "  Siehe,  ein  kleines  Feuer,  welch 
einen  grossen  Wald  zundet  es  an !"  It  need  hardly  be  ob- 
served how  frequently  in  ancient  classical  poetry  the  image 
of  the  little  spark  setting  the  great  forest  in  a  blaze  i-ecurs — 
in  Homer,  11.^  xi.,  155;  in  Pindar,  Pyth.,  iii.,  66,  and  elsewhere ; 
nor  yet  how  much  better  this  of  the  wrapping  of  some  vast 
forest  in  a  flame  by  the  falling  of  a  single  spark  sets  out  that 
which  was  in  St.  James's  mind,  namely,  of  a  far-spreading  mis- 
chief springing  from  a  smallest  cause,  than  does  the  vague 
sense  which  in  our  version  is  attached  to  the  word.  Our 
translators  have  placed  "  wood"  in  the  margin. 

Rev.  iii.,  2. — "  Strengthen  the  things  which  remain^  that  are 
ready  to  die."  The  better  commentators  are  now  agreed  that 
ra  XoiTTo,  thus  rendered  "  the  things  which  remain,"  should  be 
taken  rather  as  =tovq  Xonrove,  and  that  the  angel  of  the  Sar- 
dian  Church  is  not  bidden,  as  we  generally  understand  it,  to 
*  Sermons,  vol.  iii.,  p.  272. 


146      TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

strengthen  the  graces  that  remain  in  his  own  heart,  but  the 
few  and  feeble  believers  that  remain  in  the  Church  over 
which  he  j^resides;  the  allusion  being  probably  to  Ezek. 
xxxiv.,  2.  Vitringa:  "  Commendat  vigilantiam,  qua  sibi  a 
raorte  caverent,  et  alios  ab  interitu  imminente  vindicarent." 
The  use  of  the  neuter,  singular  and  plural,  where  not  things, 
but  persons  are  intended,  is  too  frequent  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  cause  any  difficulty  (Winer,  Gramm.^  §  27,  4),  and 
may  have  a  very  deep  significance  here,  where  it  designates 
an  inert  and  well-niarh  lifeless  mass. 


OJf  SOME  INCORRECT  RENDERINGS  OF  WORDS,  ETC.     147 


CHAPTER  X. 

ON   SOME   INCORRECT   RENDERINGS    OF  WORDS   AND   PASSAGES. 

Our  translators  occasionally  fail  in  jDart  or  altogether  to 
give  the  true  force  of  a  word  or  a  passage.  In  some  cases  it 
is  evident  they  have  assumed  a  wrong  etymology.  These 
are  examples : 

Matt,  viii.,  20. — "  The  birds  of  the  air  have  oiests^  It  stood 
thus  in  the  versions  preceding ;  the  Vulgate,  in  like  manner, 
has  "  nidos ;"  but  some  of  the  earlier  Latin  versions, "  diver- 
soria ;"  and  Augustine,  using  one  of  these,  has  "  tabernacu- 
la  ;"*  and  these,  with  their  equivalent  English,  are  on  all  ac- 
counts the  preferable  renderings.  For,  in  the  first  place,  birds 
do  not  retire  to  their  "  nests"  except  at  one  brief  jjeriod  of 
the  year;  and  then,  secondly,  KaraaKrivwauQ  will  not  bear  that 
meaning,  or,  at  all  events,  has  so  much  more  naturally  the 
more  general  meaning  of  shelters,  habitations  ("  latibula," 
"cubilia;"  "Wohnungen,"  De  Wette),  that  one  must  needs 
agree  with  Grotius,  who  here  remarks :  "  Quin  vox  ha3c  ad 
arborum  ramos  pertineat,  dubitaturum  non  puto  qui  loca  in- 
fra, xiii.,  32  ;  Marc,  iv.,  32,  et  Luc.  xiii.,  19,  inspexerit."f  He 
might  have  added  to  these,  Psa.  civ,,  12  ;  Dan.  iv.,  18,  LXX.   / 

Matt.  X., 4;  comp.  Mark  iii.,  18, — "Simon  the  Canaanite?'' 
I  have  often  asked  myself  in  perplexity  what  our  transla- 
tors meant  by  this  "  Canaanite,"  which  they  are  the  first  to 
use,  although  Cranmer's  "  Simon  of  Canaan^''  and  probably 
Tyndale's  "  Simon  of  Canan"  come  to  the  same  thing.  Take 
"  Canaanite"  in  its  obvious  sense,  and  in  that  which  every 
where  else  in  the  Scripture  it  possesses  (Gen.  xii,,  6 ;  Exod. 
xxiii,,  28;   Zech,  xiv,,  21 ;   and  continually),  and  the  word 

*  Qucest.  xvii.  in  Matt.,({\i.  /). 

+  See  an  excellent  note  in  Fischer,  De  Vltiis  Lex.  N.  7",,  p.  285, 


148       TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

would  imply  that  one  of  the  twelve,  of  those  that  should  sit 
on  the  twelve  thrones  judging  the  tribes  of  Israel,  was  him- 
self not  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  but  of  that  accursed  stock, 
which  the  children  of  Israel,  going  back  from  God's  com- 
mandment, had  failed  utterly  to  extirpate  on  their  entrance 
into  the  Promised  Land,  and  which,  having  thus  been  per- 
mitted to  live,  had  gradually  been  absorbed  into  the  nation. 
This,  of  course,  could  not  be ;  to  say  nothing  of  the  word 
which  they  had  before  them  being  Kavaj/tVr/e,  and  not  Xaj^o- 
valoc,  as  would  have  been  necessary  to  justify  the  rendering 
of  the  Authorized  Version.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Ka- 
vavirriQ  here  is  =  4jj\w-//c,  Luke  vi.,  15;  Acts  i.,  13,  and  ex- 
jn-esses  the  fact  that  Simon  had  been,  before  he  joined  him- 
self to  the  Lord,  one  of  those  stormy  zealots  who,  professing 
to  follow  the  example  of  Phinehas  (Num.  xxv.,  11),  took  the 
vindication  of  God's  outraged  law  into  their  own  hands. 
There  is,  indeed,  another  explanation  sometimes  given  of  the 
word,  but  the  manner  in  which  our  translators  have  spelt  the 
word  will  hardly  allow  one  to  suppose  that  they  adopted 
this,  and  by  "Canaanite"  meant  "  of  Cana,"  the  village  in  Gal- 
ilee. This  is  Jerome's  view,  and  I  suppose  Beza's  ("Canan- 
ites")  andDeWette's  ("  der  Kananit") ;  yet  Kam  would  sure- 
ly yield,  not  Kai'ai/tVije,  but  KaWrr/e,  as  "A/32»jjOa,  ' A(MripiTriQ.  I 
confess  myself  wholly  at  a  loss  to  understand  the  intention 
of  our  translatoi'S ;  for  the  reading  Kavavaloc,  which  Tischen- 
dorf  and  Lachmann  have  introduced  into  their  text,  hardly 
known  when  they  wrote,  could  certainly  have  exercised  no 
influence  npon  them,  except,  indeed,  through  the  "  Chanana)- 
us"  of  the  Yulgate. 

Matt,  xiv.,  8. — "And  she,  being  before  insti'uctecl  of  her 
mother,  said.  Give  me  here  John  Baptist's  head  in  a  char- 
ger." A  meaning  is  given  here  to  7rpoj3i(ja(Tde~iaa  which  it 
will  not  bear,  but  to  which  the  "  prsemonita"  of  tlie  Vulgate 
may  have  led  the  way.  Iljoo/Bt/Sa^fetv  is  to  urge  on,  or  push 
forward,  to  make  to  advance,  or  sometimes,  intransitively,  to 
advance;  the  irpo  not  being  of  time,  but  of  place;  thus  TTjOoyGi- 


ON  SOME  INCORRECT  RENDERINGS  OF  WORDS,  ETC.    149 

l3a^£iy  rt)v  Trarp/ca,  to  set  forward  the  might  of  one's  country 
(Polybius  ix.,  10, 4) ;  and  it  is  sometimes  used  literally,  some- 
times figuratively.  On  the  one  other  occasion  when  it  occurs 
in  the  New  Testament  it  is  used  literally ;  TrposfDifiaffav  'AXit,- 
avhpov  (Acts  xix.,  33), "  they  j!>z/5/tec//c»rtt"a?Y?  Alexander,"  not, 
as  iu  our  version, "  they  drew  out  Alexander ;"  here  figura- 
tively and  morally.  We  may  conceive  the  unhappy  girl, 
with  all  her  vanity  and  levity,  yet  shrinking  from  the  i)eti- 
tion  of  blood  which  her  mother  would  put  into  her  lips,  and 
needing  to  be  urged  on,  or  pushed  forward,  before  she  could 
be  induced  to  make  it;  and  this  is  implied  in  the  word.  I 
should  translate,  "And  she,  being  urged  on  by  her  mother." 

Matt,  xi v.,  13. — "They  followed  him  on  foot  out  of  the 
cities."  IlEiCp  might  very  well  mean  "  on  foot,"  yet  it  does 
not  mean  so  here,  but  rather  "  by  land."  There  could  be  no 
question  that  the  multitude  Avho  followed  Jesus  would  in  the 
main  proceed  "  on  foot,"  and  not  in  chariots  or  on  horses,  and 
it  is  not  this  which  the  evangelist  desires  to  state.  The  con- 
trast which  he  would  draw  is  between  the  Lord  who  reach- 
ed the  desert  place  bg  ship  (see  the  earlier  part  of  the  verse), 
and  the  multitude  who  found  their  way  thither  bg  land. 
Compare  the  use  of  nei^evetv  at  Acts  xx.,  13,  by  the  Rheims 
rightly  translated  "  to  journey  by  land,"  but  in  our  transla- 
tion, not  with  the  same  precision, "  to  go  afoot." 

Matt,  xxiii.,  24. — "Which  strain  at  a  gnat,  and  swallow  a 
camel."  This  has  often  been  found  fault  with.  Long  ago 
Bishop  Lowth  complained,  "The  impropriety  of  the  preposi- 
tion has  wholly  destroyed  the  meaning  of  the  phrase."  Yet 
it  may  well  be  a  question  here  whether  the  inaccuracy  com- 
plained of  lies  at  the  door  of  the  translators  or  the  printers. 
For  myself,  I  feel  strongly  convinced  that  we  have  here  a 
misprint,  which  having  been  passed  over  in  the  first  edition 
of  1611,  has  held  its  ground  ever  since;  and  that  our  trans- 
lators intended, "  which  strain  out  a  gnat,  and  swallow  a 
camel ;"  this  being  at  once  intelligible,  and  a  correct  render- 
ing of  the  original,  Avhile  our  version,  as  at  joresent  it  stands, 


150      TliENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION'  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

is  neither,  or  only  intelligible  on  the  supposition,  no  doubt 
the  supposition  of  most  English  readers,  that  "  strain  «<" 
means  swallow  with  difficulty,  men  hardly  and  Avith  eft'ort 
swallowing  the  little  insect,  but  gulping  down  meanwhile, 
unconcerned,  the  huge  animal.  It  need  scarcely  be  said  that 
this  is  very  far  from  the  meaning  of  the  original  words,  ol  Bi- 
vXi'CovTEQ  Toi'  kwrwTra,  by  Meyer  rendered  well  "jjercolanda  re- 
moventes  muscani,"  and  by  the  Vulgate  also  not  ill, "  exco- 
lantes  culicem ;"  for  which  use  of  ^ivXl^Eiv,  as  to^  cleanse  by 
passing  through  a  strainer,  see  Plutarch, /Sy??y>.,vi.,  7, 1.  It 
was  the  custom  of  the  more  accurate  and  stricter  Jews  to 
strain  their  wine,  vinegar,  and  other  potables  through  linen 
or  gauze,  lest  unawares  they  should  drink  down  some  little 
unclean  insect  therein,  and  thus  transgress  Lev.  xi.,  20,  23, 41, 
42,  just  as  the  Buddhists  do  noAV  in  Ceylon  and  Hindostan — 
ancl  to  this  custom  of  theirs  the  Lord  refers.  A  recent  travel- 
er in  North  Africa  writes  in  an  unpublished  communication 
which  he  has  been  good  enough  to  make  to  me, "In  a  ride 
from  Tangier  to  Tetuan  I  observed  that  a  Moorish  soldier 
who  accompanied  me,  when  he  drank,  always  unfolded  the 
end  of  his  turban  and  placed  it  over  the  mouth  of  his  bota, 
drinking  through  the  muslin,  to  strain  out  the  gnats,  whose 
larva3  swarm  in  the  water  of  that  country."  The  further 
fact  that  our  present  version  rests  to  so  great  an  extent  on 
the  three  preceding,  Tyndale's,  Cranmer's,  and  the  Geneva, 
and  that  all  these  have  "  strain  oi<?,"  is  additional  evidence 
in  confirmation  of  that  about  which  for  myself  I  feel  no 
doubt,  namely,  that  we  have  here  an  unnoticed,  and  thus  un- 
corrected, error  of  the  press ;  which  yet,  having  been  once  al- 
lowed to  pass,  yielded,  or  seemed  to  yield,  some  sort  of  sense, 
and  thus  did  not  provoke  and  challenge  correction,  as  one 
making  sheer  nonsense  would  have  done.  There  was  no  such 
faultless  accuracy  in  the  first  edition  as  should  make  us  slow 
to  admit  this ;  on  the  contrary,  more  than  one  mistake,  which 
had  in  the  exemplar  edition  of  1611  been  passed  over,  was 
subsequently  discovered  and  removed.     Thus  it  stood  there, 


ON  SOME  IXCORRECT  RENDERINGS  OF  WORDS,  ETC.    151 

at  1  Cor.  iv.,  9, "  God  bath  set  forth  us  the  apostles  last,  as  it 
■were  approved  to  death ;"  yet  "  approved"  was  afterward 
changed  for  the  word  no  doubt  intended, "  appointed."  In 
another  passage,  I  mean  1  Cor.  xii.,  28,  the  misprint  "helps 
in  governments,"  after  having  retained  its  place  in  several 
successive  editions,  was  afterward  in  like  manner  removed, 
and  the  present  correcter  reading,  "  helps,  governments" 
{ixvTCKi]-^uc^  yvfteprr'iaeir),  substituted  in  its  room. 

Mark  xi.,  4. — "^  place  where  two  xoays  meV  "Afx<i4)C0Q 
[ufiipi  and  o^dc)  is  rather  a  Avay  round,  a  crooked  lane. 

Mark  xii.,  26. — "  Have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses 
how  ill  the  bush  God  spake  unto  him  ?"  But  kiri  rijc  l3urov,  as 
all  acknowledge  now,  is  not  "  in  the  bush,"  as  indicating  the 
place  from  which  God  spake  to  Moses,  but  means  "in  that 
portion  of  Scrij^ture  which  goes  by  the  name  of  The  Bush" — 
the  Jews  being  wont  to  designate  different  portions  of  Scrip- 
ture by  the  most  memorable  thing  or  fact  recorded  in  them; 
thus  one  j^ortion  was  called  //  fturoc.  How,  indeed  to  tell  this 
story  in  the  English  Version  is  not  easy  to  determine,  with- 
out forsaking  the  translator's  sphere  and  entering  into  that 
of  the  commentator.  I  may  observe  that  if  'llXia  (Rom.  xi., 
2)  is  a  quotation  of  the  same  kind.  It  can  never  mean  "  of 
Elias,"  as  in  our  translation,  but  is  rather  "  in  the  history  of 
Elias,"  in  that  section  jof  Scripture  whicli  tells  of  him;  so  De 
Wette  :  "  in  der  Geschichte  des  Elia." 

Acts  xiv.,  15. — "We  also  are  7ne?i  of  like  passioiis  with 
you."  This  fact  would  not  have  disproved  in  the  eyes  of 
these  Lycaonians  the  right  of  Paul  and  Silas  to  be  consider- 
ed gods.  The  heathen  were  only  too  ready  to  ascribe  to 
their  gods  like  passions,  revenge,  lust,  envy,  with  their  own. 
'OfioimaQtiq  vfiiv  means  rather  "  subject  to  like  conditions," 
that  is,  of  pain,  sickness,  old  age,  death,  "  with  yourselves." 
Translate,"  We  also  are  men  who  suffer  like  things  with  your- 
selves." The  Vulgate,  "Et  nos  mortales  sumus,"  is  on  the 
right  track;  and  Tyndale,  "We  are  mortal  men  like  unto 
you."     The  only  other  passage  in  the  New  Testament  in 


152       TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

wbicli  ufj.oioTradnc  occurs  (James  v.,  1  T)  will  need  to  be  slight- 
ly modified  in  the  same  sense. 

Acts  xvii.,  22. — "  I  perceive  that  in  all  things  ye  are  too  su- 
perstitioKS.^^  This,  as  Luther's  ."  allzu  aberglaubisch,"  is  a 
rendering  very  much  to  be  regretted.  Whatever  severe 
things  St.  Paul  might  be  obliged  to  say  to  his  hearers,  yet  it 
was  not  his  way  to  begin  by  insulting,  and  in  this  way  alien- 
ating them  from  himself,  and  from  the  truth  of  which  he  was 
the  bearer.  Rathei",  if  there  was  any  thing  in  them  which  he 
could  praise,  he  would  praise  that,  and  only  afterward  con- 
demn that  which  demanded  condemnation.  So  is  it  here ;  he 
affirmed,  and  no  doubt  they  took  it  for  praise,  that  by  his 
own  observation  he  had  gathered  they  were  wc  cei<Ticaifiore<TTi- 
povc,  as  men  greatly  addicted  to  the  worship  of  deities,  "very 
religious,"  as  I  should  render  it,  giving  to  "  religious"  its  true 
sense,  and  not  the  mischievous  sense  which  it  has  now  ac- 
quired. So  Beza,  "  religiosiores ;"  and  De  Wette, "  sehr  got- 
tesfurchtig."  This  was  the  praise  which  all  antiquity  gave 
to  the  Athenians,  and  which  Paul  does  not  withhold,  using 
at  the  same  time  Avith  the  finest  tact  and  skill  a  middle  word, 
capable  of  a  good  sense,  and  capable  of  a  bad — a  word  origi- 
nally of  honorable  meaning,  but  which  had  already  slipped  in 
part  into  a  dishonorable  sense ;  thus  finely  insinuating  that 
this  service  of  theirs  might  easily  slip,  or  have  slipped  al- 
ready, into  excess,  or  might  be  rendered  to  wrong  objects. 
Still  these  words  are  to  be  taken,  not  as  a  holding  up  to 
them  of  their  sin,  but  as  a  captatio  benevolent  ice,  and  it  must 
be  confessed  they  are  coarsely  rendered  in  our  version. 

Acts  XXV.,  5. — "  Let  them,  therefore,  said  he,  lohich  among 
you  are  able.,  go  down."  But  ol  cwaroi  is  not  "those  which 
are  able,"  but  "  those  Avhich  are  in  authority,"  as  the  Vul- 
gate rightly,  "  qui  potentes  sunt :"  see  Losner,  Obss.  in  N.  7!, 
in  loco. 

Rom.  ii.,  22. — "Thou  that  abhorrest  idols,  dost  thou  com- 
mit sacrilege  .^"  This  is  too  general,  and  fails  to  bring  out 
with  sufficient  distinctness  the  charge  which  the  apostle  in 


ON  SOME  INCORRECT  REXBERINGS  OF  WORDS,  ETC      153 

this  upoffvXug  is  making  against  the  Jew.  The  charge  is  tliis ; 
"  Thou  professest  to  abhor  idols,  and  yet  art  so  mastered  by 
thy  covetousness  that,  if  opportunity  offers,  thou  wilt  not 
scruple  thyself  to  lay  hands  on  these  gold  and  silver  abom- 
inations, and  to  make  them  thy  own"  (see  Chrysostom,  in 
loco).  Read,  "  Thou  that  abhorrest  idoh,  dost  thou  rob  tem- 
ples F" 

Rom.  xi.,  8. — "According  as  it  is  written, God  hath  given 
them  the  spirit  of  slumber.''^  Our  translators  must  have  de- 
rived KaTuvvt,i5  from  vvfTTa'Ciiy,  as  indeed  many  others  have 
done,  before  they  could  have  given  it  this  meaning.  Yet  they 
plainly  have  their  misgiving  in  respect  of  the  correctness  of 
this  etymology,  for  they  propose  "  remorse"  in  the  margin, 
evidently  on  the  correcter  hypothesis  that  the  word  is  not 
from-  vvtTTulieiv,  but  vvnuEir.  '  Still,  even  if  they  had  put  "  re- 
morse," as  the  compunction  of  the  soul  (the  Vulgate  has 
"compunctio"),  into  the  text,  though  they  would  have  been 
etymologically  right,  they  would  not  have  seized  the  exact 
force  of  K-aravu^tc,  at  least  in  Hellenistic  Greek,  as  is  plain 
from  the  service  which  it  does  in  the  Septuagint  (Isa,  xxix,, 
10  ;  Psa.  lix,,  ,3),  and  from  the  Hebrew  words  which  it  is  there 
made  to  render.  This  is  no  place  for  entering  at  length  into 
all  (and  it  is  much)  which  has  been  written  on  this  word. 
Sufficient  to  say  that  it  is  properly  the  stupor  or  stupefac- 
tion, the  astonishment,  bringing  "  astonishment"  back  to  its 
stronger  and  earlier  meaning,  the  stunnedness  ("Betaubung," 
De  Wette)  consequent  on  a  wound  or  blow,  vvaaeiv,  as  I  need 
hardly  observe,  being  "to  strike"  as  well  as  "to  pierce." 
"  Torpor,"  only  that  this  so  easily  suggests  the  wrong  ety- 
mology, and  runs  into  the  notion  of  deep  sleep,  would  not  be 
a  bad  rendering  of  it.  "  Stupor,"  which  the  "  Five  Clergy- 
men" have  adopted,  is  perhaps  better.  Hammond,  whose 
marginal  emendations  of  the  Authorized  Version  are  often 
exceedingly  valuable,  and  deserve  move  attention  than  they 
have  received,  being  about  the  most  valuable  part  of  hisPar- 
aphrase  and  Annotations  upon  the  Neio  Testamoit,  has  sug- 


154       TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTA3IENT. 

gested  "  senselessuess ;"  but  this  is  not  one  of  his  happiest 
emendations. 

Gal.  i.,  18. — "I  Avent  up  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter."  'lirro- 
piiv  is  not  merely  "  to  see,"  but  properly  to  inquire,  to  inves- 
tigate, to  interrogate,  to  arrive  by  personal  knowledge,  ocu- 
lar or  other,  at  the  actual  knowledge  of  past  events;  and 
then,  secondarily,  to  set  down  the  results  of  these  investiga- 
tions, just  as  laropia  is  first  this  investigation,  and  then,  in  a 
secondary  sense,  the  result  of  it  duly  set  down,  or,  as  we  say, 
"history."  Here,  indeed,  it  is  a  person,  and  not  things,  which 
are  the  object  of  this  closer  knowledge.  "  I  went  up  to  Je- 
rusalem," says  Paul,  "  to  acquaint  mi/self  with  Peter"  ("  ac- 
curatius  cognoscere ;  itaque  plus  inest  quam  in  verbo  /cttj'." 
— Winer). 

Gal.  v.,  19,  20. — "The  works  of  the  flesh  are  manifest,  .  .  . 
seditions.''^  It  is  at  first  perplexing  to  find  this  as  the  render- 
ing of  cixoirramai,  which  is  evidently  a  word  of  wider  reach ; 
but  Archdeacon  Hare  has  admirably  accounted  for  its  ap- 
pearance in  this  place.*  I  will  quote  liis  Avords :  "  When  our 
version  is  inaccurate  or  inadequate,  this  does  not  arise,  as  it 
does  throughout  in  the  Rhemish  Version,  from  a  coincidence 
with  the  Vulgate,  yet  its  inadequate  renderings  often  seem 
to  have  arisen  from  an  imperfect  apprehension  of  some  Latin 
substitute  for  the  word  in  the  Greek  text — from  taking  some 
peculiar  sense  of  the  Latin  word  difierent  from  that  in  which 
it  Avas  used  to  represent  the  Greek  original.  Let  me  illus- 
trate this  by  a  single  instance.  Among  the  Avorks  of  the 
flesh  St.  Paul  (Gal.A\,20)  numbers  dixocrraeriai,  ^\hich  Ave  ren- 
der '  seditions.'  But  '  seditions'  in  our  old,  as  Avell  as  our 
modern  language,  are  only  one  form  of  the  divisions  implied 
by  h')(p(TTaaiai,  and  assuredly  not  the  form  Avhich  Avould  pre- 
sent itself  foremost  to  the  apostle's  mind  Avhen  Avriting  to 
the  Galatians.  At  first,  too,  one  is  puzzled  to  understand 
how  the  Avord  '  seditions'  came  to  suggest  itself  in  the  place, 
instead  of  the  more  general  term  '  divisions,'  Avhich  is  the 
*  Mission  of  the  Comforter,  p.  391. 


OxV  SOME  INCORRECT  RENDERINGS  OF  WORDS,  ETC.      ]  55 

plain  correspondent  to  dixocrrairiai,  and  is  so  used  in  Rora. 
xvi.,17,  and  in  1  Cor.  iil.,  3.  Here  the  thought  occurs  that 
the  Latin  word  '  seditio,'  though  in  its  ordinary  acceptation 
equivalent  to  its  English  derivative,  yet  primarily  and  ety- 
mologically  answers  very  closely  to  hxo(TTa(Tiai ;  and  one  is 
naturally  led  to  conjecture  that  our  translators  must  have 
followed  some  Latin  version,  in  which  the  word  'seditiones' 
was  used,  not  without  an  affectation  of  archaic  elegance. 
Now  the  Vulgate  has  "  disseusiones,'  but  in  Erasmus,  whose 
style  was  marked  by  that  characteristic,  swe  find  the  very 
word  '  seditiones.'  Hence  Tyndale,  whom  we  know  from  his 
controversial  writings  to  have  made  use  of  Erasmus's  ver- 
sion, took  his  *  sedition,'  not  minding  that  the  sense  in  which 
Erasmus  had  used  the  Latin  word  was  alien  to  the  English ; 
and  from  Tyndale  it  has  come  down,  with  a  mere  change 
of  number,  into  our  present  version,  while  Wicliffe  and  the 
Rhemish  render  the  Vulgate  by  '  dissensions.'  " 

Ephes.  iv.,  29. — "Let  no  corrupt  communication  proceed 
out  of  your  mouth,but  that  which  is  good  to  the  use  ofedifi/- 
ing.''''  But  to  justify  these  last  words,  to  which  Beza's  "ad 
fedificationis  usum"  may  have  led  the  way,  we  should  have 
found,  not  Trpoq  oho^ofjifjv  TtJQ  )(pEtac,  but  TTjOoc  or  elg  xpttai'  r^c  oIko- 
^ojjiijg.  No  one  will  aflSrm  that  we  have  such  an  hypallage 
here.  There  is  much  more  in  the  words  than  such  a  transla- 
tion, even  were  it  allowable,  would  educe  from  them.  It  is 
riot  very  easy  to  give,  without  circumlocution,  a  satisfacto- 
ry English  rendering ;  but  the  meaning  is  abundantly  clear. 
"Let  such  discourse,"  St. Paul  would  say,  "proceed  from  your 
mouths  as  is  profitable  to  the  present  emergent  need  or  oc- 
casion ;  do  not  deal  in  vague,  flat,  unmeaning  generalities, 
which  would  suit  a  thousand  other  cases  equally  well,  and 
probably,  therefore,  equally  ill ;  let  your  words  be  what  the 
words  of  wise  men  will  always  be,  nails  fastened  in  a  sure 
place,  words  suiting  the  present  time  and  the  present  person, 
being /or  t/ie  edifying  of  the  occasion?''  "Edification  of  the 
need,"  Ellicott  has  it;  and  De  Wettc,  "zur  Erbauung  nach 

Co 


156       TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Bediirfniss."  An  admonition  of  a  similar  character  is  couch- 
ed in  the  ilcivat  -ntLg  del  kvi  tKuario  uiroKpiytaQaL  of  the  paral- 
lel passage  in  the  Colossians  (iv.,  6).  Not  so  much  "  every 
man,"  as  our  version  has  it,  but '"''  each  one"  (Jc  Eraorog)  must 
have  his  own  answer,  that  which  meets  his  difficulties,  his 
perplexities.  There  must  not  be  one  unfeeling,  unsympathiz- 
ing,  unvarying  answer  for  all. 

Phil,  iv.,  3. — "And  I  entreat  thee  also,  true  yokefellow, 
help  those  women  which  labored  with  me  in  the  Gospel,  with 
Clement  also."  The  alteration  which  this  passage  requires 
is  exceedingly  slight.  Let  only  "those"  be  changed  into 
"  these,"  and  a  comma  be  j^laced  after  "  women,"  and  then 
the  close  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  verse  preceding, 
most  necessary  for  its  right  understanding,  will  j^lainly  ap- 
pear, and  otherwise  it  will  render  up  its  sense  clearly,  which 
now  it  can  hardly  be  affirmed  to  do.  St.  Paul  has  in  that 
verse  besought  two  faithful  women  in  the  Philippian  Church, 
very  probably  deaconesses,  Euodias*  aud.Syntyche,  between 
whom  some  difference  had  arisen,  to  lay  this  aside,  and  to  be 
again  "  of  the  same  mind  in  the  Lord."  He  now  turns  to 
one  who,  from  some  cause  or  other,  was  eminently  fitted  to 
be  a  peacemaker  between  these  two,  and  addressing  him  as 
"true  yokefellow,"  as  one  made  to  be  a  knitter  again  of  the 
loosened  bonds  or  yokes  of  love,  exhorts  him  to  "  help  these 
women,"  that  is,  to  help  them  in  a  coming  together  again — 
that  he  should  remove  all  obstacles  and  hinderances  to  this ; 
and  the  apostle  finds  a  motive  to  this  exhortation,  a  reason 
why  this  "  true  yokefellow"  should  be  at  pains  herein,  name- 
ly, 5ec<:«<se  these  two  (observe  ami'£c="quippe  quae")  had 
labored  with  himself  and  others  in  the  Gospel,  and  had  both 
of  thera  well  deserved  by  these  labors  of  love  that  they 
should  not  be  left  with  any  discord  or  dissension  between 

*  I  should  prefer  "Euodia,"as  it  is  in  the  Geneva  Version,  which  would 
mark  more  clearly  that  it  is  a  woman's  name.  Hammond,  missing  the  fact 
that  we  have  here  to  do  with  women  at  all,  would  change,  on  the  contrary, 
"Syntyche"  into  * '  Syntyches. " 


Oy  SOME  INCORRECT  RENDERINGS  OF  WORDS,  ETC.    1 5  7 

them,  if  Christian  lielp  could  remove  this.  Let  this  third 
verse  be  read  with  these  slight  alterations  here  proposed, 
and  its  meaning  is  sufficiently  clear. 

Col.  i.,  15. — "Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  Me 
first-born  of  every  creature."  This  is  one  of  the  very  few 
renderings  in  our  version  which  obscures  a  great  doctrinal 
truth,  and,  indeed,  worse  than  this,  seems  to  play  into  the 
hands  of  Arian  error.  For  does  it  not  legitimately  follow  on 
this  "first-born  of  every  creature,"  or  "  of  all  creation,"  that 
he  of  whom  this  is  predicated  must  be  himself  also  a  creature, 
although  the  first  in  the  creation  of  God  ?  But  in  the  phrase 
■n-pojroroKog  TraffTjg  Kriaeuyc^  we  are  not  tO  regard  TraarfQ  ktIghoq  as  a 
partitive  genitive,  so  that  Christ  is  included  in  the  "  every 
creature,"  though  distinguished  as  being  the  first-born  among 
them,  but  rather  as  a  genitive  of  comparison,  depending  on, 
and  governed  by,  the  Trptjrog  (see  John  i.,  15, 30)  which  lies  in 
TTpwTOTOKoc.  I  am  HOt  qultc  satisfied  with  "  born  before  every 
creature,"  or  "  brought  forth  before  every  creature,"  because 
there  lies  in  the  original  words  a  comparison  between  the  be- 
getting of  the  Son  and  the  creation  of  the  creature,  and  not 
merely  an  opposition ;  He  is  placed  at  the  head  of  a  series, 
though  essentially  differing  from  all  that  followed  in  the  fact 
that  he  was  born  and  they  only  created;  the  great  distinc- 
tion between  the  yewdv  (or  rlkrstv,  as  it  is  here)  and  the  kti- 
^«tj',  which  came  so  prominently  forwai'd  in  the  Arian  contro- 
versy, being  here  already  marked.  Still,  I  could  have  no 
question  as  between  it  and  the  "first-born  of  every  creature" 
of  our  version,  which  obviously  suggests  an  erroneous  mean- 
ing, though  it  may  be  just  capable  of  receiving  a  right  one. 
It  was  nothing  strange  that  Waterland,  who,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  last  century,  fought  the  great  battle  of  the  En- 
glish Church  against  the  Arianism  which  claimed  a  right  to 
exist  in  her  very  bosom,  should  have  been  very  ill-content  to 
find  a  most  important  testimony  to  that  truth  for  which  he 
was  contending  foregone  and  renounced,  so  far,  at  least,  as 
the  English  translation  reached.     Nor  was  this  all ;  the  verse 


158      TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

was  not  merely  taken  away  from  liim,  but,  in  appearance  at 
least,  made  over  to  his  adversaries.  He  often  complains  of 
this,  as  in  the  following  passage:  "In  respect  of  the  words, 
'  first-born  of  every  creature'  comes  not  up  to  the  force  or 
meaning  of  the  original.  It  should  have  been  '  born  (or  be- 
gotten) before  the  lohole  creation,^  as  is  manifest  from  the  con- 
text, which  gives  the  reason  why  he  is  said  to  be  Trpwrororac 
TTcto-jjc  KTicnwc-  It  is  because  he  is  '  before  all  things,'  and  be- 
cause by  him  were  all  things  created.  So  that  this  very  pas- 
sage, which,  as  it  stands  in  our  translation,  may  seem  to  sup- 
pose the  Son  one  of  the  creatures,  does,  when  rightly  under- 
stood, clearly  exempt  him  from  the  number  of  creatures.  He 
was  before  all  created  being,  and  consequently  was  himself 
uncreated^  existing  with  the  Father  from  all  eternity."* 

1  Tim.  iv.,  1, 2, 3. — "  In  the  latter  times  some  shall  depart 
from  the  faith,  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits,  and  doctrines 
of  devils ;  speaking  lies  in  hypocrisy ;  having  their  con- 
science seared  with  a  hot  iron ;  forbidding  to  marry."  It  is 
difficult  to  say  exactly  how  our  translators  intended  here  to 
deal  with  our  original.  There  is  one  very  obvious  meaning 
to  give  to  their  version,  that  which  almost  every  English 
reader  does  give,  but  one  which  involves  a  greater,  and  yet 
more  obvious  error  than  one  is  disposed  to  lay  at  their  door. 
Mede,  however,  in  a  passage  which  I  quote,  but  abridge  in 
quoting,  does  not  shrink  from  ascribing  this  to  them.  Yet  I 
quote  him  here,  not  so  much  for  his  criticism  of  what  they 
have  done,  or  what  he  supposes  them  to  have  done,  as  be- 
cause he  himself  deals  with  the  passage  in  the  only  right 
way.  Speaking  of  our  version,  he  says, "The  syntax  of  the 
words  in  the  Greek  is  incapable  of  such  a  construction ;  for 
the  persons  intimated  in  the  former  verse  are  expressed  in 
casu  recto,  as  Tiveg  Trpoaixoyreg,  but  the  persons  intended  here 
(ver.  2)  we  find  in  the  genitive,  i//euSoXdywj'  k.t.X.,  which  can 
not  agree  with  tivIq  and  TTjooffe'xoi'rfc.t     They  would  indeed 

*  Serm.  2,  Christ's  Diviniti/  proved  from  Creation. 

t  Another  inconvenience  he  does  not  mention,  that  the  seduced  and  the 
seducers  in  the  Church  would  thus  be  confounded. 


O.V  SOME  INCORBECT  RENDERINGS  OP  WORDS,  ETC.    159 

agree  with  ^ae^oj'/wi',  but  that  -would  be  a  harsh  sense  every- 
way ;  for  either  we  must  say,  as  some  do,  that  by  '  devils'  are 
meant  devilish  men,  which  is  a  hard  signification,  or  else 
it  would  bo  a  stranger  sense  to  say  that  devils  should  lie, 
have  seared  consciences,  or  forbid  marriage  or  meats ;  so 
that  Beza  and  others  had  rather  confess  a  breach  of  syntax 
than  incur  the  inconvenience  of  such  a  forced  sense.  But 
what  needs  this,  so  long  as  there  is  a  better  Avay  to  solve  it? 
namely,  to  make  all  these  genitives  to  be  governed  of  h  viro- 
Kpiatt.  I  see  no  way  but  this  to  keep  the  syntax  true  and 
even,  and  wholly  to  avoid  the  forementioned  inconveniences. 
As  for  the  use  of  the  preposition  cV,  to  signify  caicsam,  instru- 
mentum,  or  modum  acHonis,  he  that  is  not  a  stranger  to  the 
Scripture  knows  it  to  be  most  frequent,  the  Greek  text  bor- 
roAving  it  from  the  use  of  the  Hebrew  preposition  3;  comp. 
Matt,  v.,  13;  Acts  xvii.,  31 ;  Tit.  i.,  9;  2  Pet.iii.,1;  2  Thess. 
ii.,  9, 10 ;  so  in  my  text,  h  vTroicphei  xpevhXoyojv  k.t.X.,  this  was 
the  manner,  means,  and  quality  of  the  persons  whereby  the 
doctrine  of  demons  was  first  brought  in,  advanced,  and  main- 
tained in  the  Church,  namely,  through  the  hypocrisy  of  those 
who  told  lies,  of  those  who  had  their  consciences  seared,  etc."* 
Heb.  xi.,  29. — "Which  the  Egyptians  essaying  to  do,  were 
droitmecV  Did  our  translators  prefer  the  reading  KarEirovTia- 
dr](Tai'?  This  is  not  very  probable,  the  authority  for  it  being 
so  small.  If  they  did  not,  and  if  they  read,  as  is  most  likely, 
KaTiTTodriaav,  they  should  have  rendered  it  by  some  word  of 
wider  reach,  as,  for  instance,  "were  swallowed  up,"  or  "  were 
ingulfed"  ("  devorati  sunt,"  Vulgate ;  "  verschlungen  wur- 
den,"  Bleek).  "  Swallowed  up,"  besides  being  nearer  the 
original,  would  more  accurately  set  forth  the  historic  fixct. 
The  pursuing  armies  of  the  Egyptians  sunk  in  the  sands  quite 
as  much  as  they  were  overwhelmed  by  the  waves  of  the  Red 
Sea,  as  is  expressly  declared  in  the  hymn  of  triumph  which 
Moses  composed  on  the  occasion;  Kareiriev  avrovg  y^, Exod. 
XV.,  12  ;  comp.  Diodorus  Siculus,  i.,  32,  vir  ufx^ov  KaTanivirai. 
*  Apostasy  of  the  Latter  Times,  part  ii,,  c.  1. 


160       TBEXCH  OX  A  UTH.  VEESION  OF  XEW  TESTAMENT. 

James  i.,  26. — "  If  any  man  among  you  seem  to  he  religious, 
and  bridleth  not  his  tongue,  but  deceivetli  his  own  heart, 
this  man's  religion  is  vain."  This  verse,  as  it  here  stands, 
can  not  but  have  perplexed  many.  How,  it  has  been  asked, 
can  a  man  "  seem  to  be  religious,"  that  is,  present  himself  to 
others  as  sucb,  when  his  religious  pretensions  are  belied  and 
refuted  by  the  allowance  of  an  unbridled  tongue  ?  But  the 
perplexity  has  been  introduced  by  our  translators,  who  have 
here  failed  to  play  the  part  of  accurate  synonymists,  and  to 
draw  the  line  sharply  and  distinctly  between  the  verbs  ZokCiv 
and  (paiveadai.  AojveTv  expresses  the  subjective  mental  opin- 
ion of  any  thing  which  men  form,  their  do^a  about  it,  which 
may  be  right  (Acts  xv.,  28  ;  1  Cor.  iv^,  9)  or  which  may  be 
wrong  (Matt,  vi.,  7  ;  Mark  vi.,  49 ;  Acts  xxvii.,  13) ;  ^aiviaQm 
the  objective  external  aj^pearance  which  it  ijresents,  quite  in- 
dependent of  men's  conception  about  it.  Thus,  when  Xeuo- 
phon  writes  ifairero  'ix^ui  'iTnrwy  {Anab.,i.^  6,1),  he  would  af- 
firm that  horses  had  been  actually  there,  and  left  their  tracks. 
Had  he  employed  the  alternative  word,  it  would  have  im- 
plied that  Cyrus  and  his  company  took  for  tracks  of  horses 
what  might  have  been,  or  what  also  very  possibly  might  not 
have  been,  such  at  all.  "Aoke'ip  cernitur  in  opinione,  quoe  falsa 
esse  potest  et  vana.  Sed  (paiveaQai  plerumque  est  in  re  extra 
mentem ;  quamvis  nemo  opinatur."*  Apply  this  distinction 
to  the  passage  before  us ;  keep  in  mind  that  ZokeIv,  and  not 
(paivsffdat,  is  the  word  used,  and  all  is  plain :  "  If  any  man 
among  you  think  himself  religious  ("  se  putat  religiosum 
esse,"  Vulgate),  and  bridleth  not  his  tongue,  etc."  It  is  his 
own  subjective  estimate  of  his  spiritual  condition  which  is 
here  expressed,  an  estimate  which  the  following  words  de- 
clare to  be  entirely  erroneous.  Let  me  observe  here  that  the 
same  rendering  of  co^Iv,  Gal,  ii.,  6, 9,  lends  a  color  to  St.  Paul's 
words  which  is  very  far  from  being  justly  theirs.  As  we  read 
in  English,  we  seem  to  detect  a  certain  covert  irony  upon  his 
part  in  regard  of  the  pretensions  of  the  three  great  apostles 
*  Vomel,  Synonymische  Worterhuch,  p.  207. 


ON  SOME  INCOERECT  REXDERLSiGS  OF  WORDS,  ETC.    i(j i 

whom  he  met  at  Jerusalem  ("  who  seemed  to  be  something" 
— "who  seemed  to  be  piUars").  There  is,  in  fact,  nothing  of 
the  kind :  he  expresses,  not  what  they  seemed  or  appeared, 
but  what  they  by  others  were,  and  Avere  riglitly,  held  to  be. 
The  Geneva  having  "  which  are  in  estimation" — "  which  are 
taken  to  be  pillars" — is  here,  as  so  often,  correct ;  correct  also, 
it  will  be  observed,  in  making  Cokovvteq  in  both  these  verses  a 
present,  and  not  an  imperfect  participle. 

1  Pet.  iii.,16. — "Having  a  good  conscience,  that  whereas 
they  speak  evil  of  you  as  of  evil  doers,  they  may  be  ashamed 
that  falsely  accuse  your  good  conversation  in  Christ."  For 
"  whereas"  {f.v  J)  substitute  "  wherein."  The  correction  is 
not  trivial,  but  brings  out  the  exact  point  of  St. Peter's  ad- 
monition, which  we  now  miss.  It  is  this :  Not  the  doc- 
trine, but  the  moral  walk  and  conversation  of  the  Christians, 
was  the  special  object  against  which  the  calumnies  of  the 
heathen  were  directed,*  as,  for  instance,  all  manner  of  hideous 
reports  were  afloat  in  regard  of  what  they  did  in  their  secret 
assemblies.  Now,  says  the  apostle,  in  that  very  matter  in 
lohich  {kv  J)  they  calumniate  you  the  most,  put  them  in  that 
most  manifestly  to  an  ojicn  and  wholesome  shame,  even  in 
your  walk,  by  the  blameless  innocency  and  purity  of  your 
conversation  in  the  world :  "  ut  in  eo  quod  detrahunt  vobis 
confundantur"  (Vulg.).  At  chap,  ii.,  12,  precisely  the  same 
emendation  will  need  to  be  made.  There  indeed  "  wherein" 
is  suggested  in  the  margin. 

Jude  12. — "  Trees  lohose  fruit  icitherethP  But  ^QivoiruipivoQ 
has  here  a  meaning  ascribed  to  it  which  it  nowhere  possesses, 
as  though  it  were  =u)\£ait:apTrog,  the  (pdivoKapirog  of  Pin- 
dar, Fyth.,  iv.,  265,  or  the  "  frugiperdus"  of  Pliny.  The  fdi- 
voTTUjpov  is  the  late  autumn,  the  autumn  far  sjient,  which  suc- 
ceeds the  oiTwpa,  or  the  autumn  contemplated  as  the  time  of 
the  ripened  fruits  of  the  earth,  and  which  has  its  name  Trapa 
TO  (pBlveadai  t))v  oTrwpay,  from  the  waning  away  of  the  autumn 
and  the  autumn  fruits,  themselves  also  often  called  the  oVwjoa; 
*  ''' Qmos  per  Jlaffiti a  invisos  vulgus  Christianos  vocabat." — Tacitus. 


102      TRENCH  OX  A  UTH.  VERSION  OP  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

and  <pQn'oir(i)piv6Q  is  always  used  in  the  sense  of  belonging  to 
the  late  autumn.  The  Latin  language  has  no  word  which 
distinguishes  the  later  autumn  from  the  earlier,  and  therefore 
the  "  arbores  autumnales''  of  the  Vulgate  is  a  correct  trans- 
lation, and  one  as  accurate  as  the  language  would  allow,  un- 
less, indeed,  it  had  been  rendered  "  arbores  senescentis  auticm- 
n^',"  or  by  some  such  phrase  as  De  Wette,  in  his  German  trans- 
lation, has  it, "  s^jftiJherbstliche."  We,  I  think,  could  scarcely 
get  beyond  "  autumnal  trees,"  or  "  trees  of  autumn^''  as  the 
Rheims  Version  gives  it.  These  deceivers  are  likened  by  the 
apostle  to  trees  as  they  show  in  late  autumn,  when  foliage 
and  fruit  alike  are  gone.  Bengel:  "Arbor  tali  specie  qualis 
est  autumno  extremo,  sine  foliis  et  pomis."  The  (jjOiroTrijjpiva, 
uKapTra,  vfiW  then,  in  fact,  mutually  complete  one  another: 
"  without  leaves,  without  fruit."  Tyndale,  who  throws  to- 
gether BtV^pa  (j)divoTb)pii'a  aicapTra,  and  renders  the  whole  phrase 
thus, "  trees  without  fruit  at  gathering  time^''  was  feeling  aft- 
er, though  he  has  not  grasped,  the  right  translation. 


ON  SOME  UNJUST  CHAEGES,  ETC.  133 


CHAPTER  XL 

ox   SOME    CHAEGES    UNJUSTLY   BROUGHT   AGAINST  THE 
AUTHORIZED   VERSION. 

There  are  certain  charges  which  have  been  brought,  and 
some  of  them  are  still  repeated,  against  our  translation,  of 
the  injustice  of  which  I  feel  deeply  convinced.  I  do  not  now 
allude  to  charges  which  have  been  already  noticed,  and  which 
testify  to  a  want  of  familiarity  on  the  part  of  those  who 
make  them  with  the  changes  which  the  English  language, 
since  the  time  when  our  version  was  published,  has  under- 
gone. Those  on  which  I  now  would  say  something  are  of 
quite  a  different  kind.  They  move  in  quite  a  different  sphere, 
are  of  a  far  more  serious  character,  and,  indeed,  touch  so 
nearly  the  honor  and  good  faith  of  the  authors  of  our  ver- 
sion, that  they  can  hardly  be  passed  over  without  observa- 
tion. Our  translators,  then,  are  accused,  as  is  familiar  to 
many,  of  a  deceitful  handling  of  the  Word  of  God,  of  snatch- 
ing at  unfair  advantages,  gratifying  their  own  leanings  in  re- 
gard both  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  at  the  expense  of  that 
strict,  impartial  accuracy  which  it  is  the  prime  duty  of  those 
holding  their  position  of  trust  and  confidence  always  to  main- 
tain, of  slurring  over  passages  of  Scripture  which  seem  to 
make  for  an  adversary,  or  compelling  others  to  bear  a  testi- 
mony in  their  own  favor  which,  except  on  this  undue  com- 
pulsion, they  would  never  have  borne. 

These  charges  may,  for  clearness  and  convenience  sake,  be 
divided  under  the  following  heads,  which  will  include,  if  not 
all,  yet  all  the  more  important  accusations  of  this  kind  which 
have  at  any  time  been  made. 

1.  Charges  made  by  Roman  Catholics  that  our  translators 
have  compelled  passages  of  Scripture  to  tell  against  Roman 


164      TRENCH  ON  A  TJTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

doctrine,  Avliich,  fairly  translated,  would  yield  no  such  testi- 
mony against  it;  while  they  have  iveakened  or  destroyed 
the  witness  of  other  passages,  which,  were  the  version  a  more 
honest  one,  would  be  found  on  the  side  of  Rome,  in  the  points 
at  issue  between  her  and  the  Reformed  Church. 

2.  Charges,  made  chiefly  in  times  past,  by  Protestant  Dis- 
senters in  resjDect  of  such  words  as  bear  upon  the  points  of 
Church  government  and  discipline  debated  between  them 
and  us,  such,  for  instance,  as  "bishop,"  "church,"  "ordaiu" 
— that  we  have  not  played  true  in  respect  of  these,  but  have 
every  where  given  a  more  ecclesiastical  tone  and  coloring  to 
the  translation  than,  fairly  and  impartially  rendered,  it  would 
have  borne. 

3.  Charges  made  by  Arminians,  either  within  or  without 
the  Church,  accusing  our  translators  of  Calvinistic  tenden- 
cies, out  of  which  they  have  brought  jDassages  to  bear  on 
this  controversy,  and  in  their  own  sense,  that  have  no  proper 
reference  to  it  at  all — have  given,  so  to  speak,  an  edge  to 
some  statements,  and  blunted  the  edge  of  others,  according 
as  these  seemed  to  make  for  or  against  the  scheme  of  doc- 
trine which  they  favored. 

4.  Charges  made  in  modern  times  by  Arians  and  Socin- 
ians,  who  aflUrm  that  our  version  has  put  an  undue  emphasis 
on  various  passages  bearing  on  the  nature  and  dignity  of  the 
Son  of  God,  had  set  him  forth  in  a  manner  which  the  original 
would  not  warrant  as  God  in  the  very  highest  sense  of  the 
word.  To  this  is  in  general  appended  a  further  complaint, 
but  one  closely  connected  with  the  preceding,  to  the  effect 
that  sacrificial  terms,  as  "propitiation,"  "atonement,"  and 
the  like,  have  been  needlessly  and  unwarrantably  brought  in. 

It  will  at  once  be  seen  that  it  would  be  totally  impossible 
to  enter  into  all  the  conti'oversies  which  in  these  objections 
are  stirred.  Any  exhaustive  dealing  with  them  would  lead 
very  far  away  from  the  main  purj30se  of  this  book,  while  it 
would  be  much  easier  to  open  than  to  close  the  discussions 
in  which  it  would  thus  become  necessary  to  engage.     De- 


ox  SOME  UXJUST  CHARGES,  ETC.  165 

cliuing  to  plunge  into  these,  all  that  I  can  pretend  to  do  is 
to  take  one  or  two  salient  points  under  each  of  these  heads 
—  one  or  two  of  the  imputations  of  unfairness  most  often 
made — to  deal  with  these ;  and,  if  they  are  capable  of  being 
satisfactorily  set  aside,  to  argue  from  this  that  it  is  at  least 
probable  that  the  others  might  be  as  successfully  dealt  with. 

And,  first,  in  regard  of  the  complaints  made  by  the  Roman 
Catholics,  The  most  elaborate  attack  upon  the  Anglican 
Version  from. this  quarter  is  contained  in  a  work  by  Gregory 
Martin,  a  seminary  priest,  published  in  1582*  —  published, 
therefore,  some  thirty  years  before  our  present  translation.  It 
will  naturally  follow  from  this  date  that  some  of  its  charges 
are,  as  regards  our  version,  beside  the  mark,  and  do  not  touch 
it.  So  very  much,  however,  of  the  earlier  translations  sur- 
vives in  our  final  revision,  that  in  a  vast  number  of  instances 
they  bear  with  the  same  force,  or  weakness,  upon  the  version 
as  it  stands  now  as  they  did  upon  its  predecessors. 

Let  me  here  first  observe,  that  it  is  very  unreasonable  to 
find  fault  with  our  translators,  that,  in  certain  passages  fairly 
capable  of  two  renderings,  one  of  which  gave  a  stronger  tes- 
timony in  favor  of  what  they  believed  to  be  the  truth,  or  in 
condemnation  of  what  they  believed  to  be  error,  than  the 
other,  they  should  have  adopted  that  which  fell  in  with  all 
their  antecedent  convictions ;  for  instance,  that  at  Heb.  xiii.,  4, 
they  should  incline  to  that  interpretation,  and  adopt  that  ren- 
dering, which  justified  the  abolition  in  the  Reformed  Church 
of  the  compulsory  celibate  of  the  clergy.     The  rendering  of 

*  The  long  title  of  the  book  is  as  follows :  A  discovery  of  the  manifold 
Corruptions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  the  Heretics  of  our  Day,  especially  by 
the  Emjlish  Sectaries,  and  of  their  foul  dealing  herein  by  partial  and  false 
Translations,  to  the  advantage  of  their  Heresies,  in  their  English  Bibles  used 
and  authorized  since  the  Time  of  Schism.  Rheims,  1582.  Fnlke's  Defence 
of  the  Sincere  and  True  Translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  into  the  English 
Tongue,  published  in  London  the  year  following,  contains  a  sufficient  reply  to 
most  of  his  cavils ;  in  respect  of  sincerity,  I  think,  to  all.  The  most  impor- 
tant work  in  later  times  is  Ward's  Errata  of  the  Protestant  Bible,  Dublin, 
1810.  In  addition  to  these,  there  are  many  hostile  criticisms  upon  our  ver- 
sion scattered  over  various  polemical  works. 


1 G 6      TBEXCH  OX  A  VTH.  YEE&ION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

IV  Train,  "  in  all,"  i.  c,  "  inter  omnes"  (a  masculine  and  not  a 
neuter),  was  open  to  them ;  it  was  the  interpretation  adopt- 
ed by  many  of  the  ancient  fathers ;  grammatically  it  can  be 
perfectly  justified ;  it  is  accepted  to  the  present  day  by  many 
who  are  not  in  the  least  drawn  to  it  by  doctrinal,  but  pure- 
ly by  philological  interests,  and  it  is  certainly  very  idle  to 
complain  of  them  that  they  preferred  it. 

Setting,  then,  such  passages  aside,  I  will  adduce  one  or  two 
others  of  a  diflferent  character.  The  first  is  one  where  this 
charge  has  been  sometimes  allowed  by  writers  of  our  own 
communion.  Thus  Professor  Stanley  is  inclined  to  ascribe 
to  "  theological  fear  or  partiality"  that,  in  St.  Paul's  state- 
ment, "  Whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  or  drink  this  cup  of 
the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  the  Lord"  (1  Cor.  xi.,  27),  they  have  substituted  "  and"  for 
"or."  I  have  no  suspicion  that  they  did  this  "in  order  to 
avoid  the  inference  that  the  Eucharist  might  be  received 
under  one  kind."  In  the  first  place,  there  is  authority  for 
"and ;"  hardly,  to  my  mind,  sufficient  authority,  but  so  much 
that  an  eminent  scholar  like  Fritzchc,  with  no  theological 
leaning  on  one  side  or  the  other,  even  now  prefers  it,  and 
Lachmann  has  given  it  a  place  in  his  text.  Moreover,  such 
an  inference  from  these  words  is  so  extravagantly  absurd,  so 
refuted  by  several  other  statements  in  this  very  chapter,  that 
I  can  not  see  how  they  should  have  cared  to  exclude  it.  Even 
had  they  been  willing  to  sacrifice  truth  and  honesty,  they 
were  under  no  temptation  to  do  so.  They  probably  accept- 
ed Km  as  the  right  reading. 

Gal.  A'.,  6. — "Faith  which  xcorketh  by  love."  It  was  for  a 
long  time  a  favorite  charge  of  the  Romanists,  even  in  the 
face  of  their  own  Vulgate,  which  has  rightly  "  fides  quae  per 
caritatem  operatiir^''  in  the  fiice,  too,  of  the  invariable  use  of 
hepye'icrdai  as  a  middle  verb  in  the  New  Testament  (Rom.  vii., 
6;  2  Cor.  i.,6;  iv.,  12;  Ephes.  iii.,  20;  James  v.,  16),  that  we 
had  given  to  kvepyov^ivrf  an  active  sense  when  it  ought  to 
have  a  passive;  and  that  we  had  done  this,  dreading  lest 


OxV  SOME  UNJUST  CHARGES,  ETC.  167 

there  should  be  found  here  any  support  for  their  doctrine  of 
the  "  fides  formata,"  as  the  faith  which  justifies.  They  would 
have  had  the  words  translated  "  faith  wliich  is  wrought  on,'' 
i.e., animated,  stirred  up,  " by  love."  Other  unfriendly  crit- 
ics have  repeated  the  charge.  There  is  no  need,  however,  to 
refute  it,  as  the  later  Roman  Catholic  expositors,  Windisch- 
mann,  for  instance,*  have  acknowledged  the  accuracy  of  our 
translation,  have  accepted  it  as  the  only  true  one,  and  thus 
implicitly  allowed  the  injustice  of  this  charge. 

Indeed,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  if,  in  the  heat  of 
earlier  controversy,  any  shadow  of  unfair  advantage  might 
seem  to  have  been  taken  by  the  first  Protestant  translators 
after  the  Reformation,  those  of  King  James's  Bible  were  care- 
ful to  forego  and  renounce  every  thing  of  the  kind.  Thus  it 
was  a  complaint,  and  I  can  not  esteem  it  an  unreasonable 
one,  on  the  part  of  Roman  Catholic  assailants  of  our  earlier 
versions,!  that  they  rendered  tic(o\ov  "image,"  and  not  "idol;" 
and  £i^u>XoXaTpr]g  "  worshiper  of  images,""  and  not  "  worshiper 
of  idols"  or  "  idolater ;"  in  this  way  confounding  the  honor 
paid  in  the  Roman  Church  to  images  with  the  idol-Avorship 
of  heathenism.  They  urged  that,  however  we  might  repro- 
bate and  condemn  the  former,  it  was  confessedly  an  entirely 
different  thing  from  the  latter ;  while  yet  our  translators 
went  out  of  their  way,  and  departed  from  the  more  natural 
rendering  of  t'i 2 wXo>/,  for  the  purpose  of  including  both  under 
a  common  reproach;  that,  indeed,  by  such  renderings  as  this, 
"How  agreeth  the  temple  of  God  with  images?''  (2  Cor.  vi., 
16),  they  suggested  and  helped  forward  the  destruction  of 
these  in  all  the  churches  through  the  land.  The  complaint 
was  a  just  one,  and  our  last  translators  seem  to  have  so  re- 
garded it.  They  have  nowhere  employed  the  offensive  term, 
but  always  used  "idolater"  and  "idol."  Thus,  compare 
1  Cor,  X.,  7 ;  1  John  v.,  21,  in  our  version,  with  the  same  in 

*  Erklarung  des  Brief es  an  die  Galater,M&mz,  1843, p.  131, 
t  See  Ward's  Errata  of  the  Protestant  Bible,  p.  63  ;  compare  Fulke's  De- 
fence of  the  English  Translation,  ch.  iii,,  §  1, 


108       TRENCH  ON  AUTH.  VEESION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

the  earlier  Anglican  versions ;  in  the  latter  passage,  indeed, 
the  Geneva  had  anticipated  this  correction. 

In  respect  of  objections  sometimes  made  by  Dissenters 
against  our  translation,  it  would  be  to  little  profit  to  make 
this  an  occasion  of  entering  on  the  long  controversies  be- 
tween the  English  Church,  which  has  recognized  Episcopal 
government  as  of  divine  intention  and  institution,  and  those 
bodies  which  deny  this.  In  the  main,  those  bodies,  in  con- 
senting, with  no  outward  constraint  upon  them,  to  use  the 
Authorized  Version,  have  admitted  that  in  this  matter  no 
very  grievous  wrong  is  done  to  them ;  nor,  it  must  be  owned, 
are  there  any  loud  complaints  or  charges  of  unfairness  upon 
this  score  made  at  the  present  day.  Still,  such  do  from  time 
to  time  make  themselves  heard.  I  shall  content  myself  with 
observing  that,  if  not  in  all,  yet  in  nearly  all,  those  passages 
which  are  most  objected  to,  we  have  merely  followed  ver- 
sions preceding,  and  those  not  exclusively  the  Bishops'  Bible 
or  Cranmer's,  but  Tyndale's  and  the  Geneva — neither  of  them 
with  any  very  strong  sympathy  for  our  Church  government. 
For  instance,  it  was  the  Geneva  which  had  the  credit  of  re- 
storing "  Church"  instead  of"  congregation"  as  the  rendering 
of  (.KKkridia.  Then,  too,  it  has  been  often  said,  and  the  charge 
is  by  no  means  obsolete,  that  the  translation  of  iTnaKoirovq  by 
"overseers"  at  Acts  xx.,  28,  and  not  by  "bishops,"  as  else- 
where, is  a  flagrant  piece  of  dishonesty,  committed  in  the 
hope  of  in  this  manner  obscuring  the  fact  that  there  were 
many  "bishops"  in  the  single  Church  of  Ephesus,  ergo  that 
"  bishop" ="  presbyter."  But  so  clear  is  it  that  iitiaKOTroQ  is 
here  not  the  technical  name  of  an  office,  but  the  expression 
of  the  fact  of  oversight,  that  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Coverdale, 
the  Geneva,  had  all  so  rendered  it  before.  Again,  what "  par- 
ty zeal"  was  at  work  when  kinaKOTcii  was  rendered  "  bishop- 
ric" (Acts  i.,  20),  or  what  we  could  hope  to  gain  from  this 
translation,  it  is  difficult  to  see.  "  Charge,"  or  some  such 
word,  would  be  preferable,  for  the  same  reason  that  tiziaKoiroQ 
(Acts  XX.,  28)  is  better  rendered  "overseer"  than  "bishop," 


ON  SOME  UNJUST  CHARGES,  ETC.  169 

namely, because  the  word  is  not  technical  and  official;  but  in 
employing  "bishopric"  we  did  but  retain  the  rendering  of 
Wicliife,  Tyndale,  Coverdale,  and  Cranraer. 

The  complaint  that  there  were  Calvinistic,  as  against  Ar- 
minian,  leanings  in  our  translators,  modifying,  consciously  or 
unconsciously,  the  rendering  of  various  passages,  differs  from 
all  other  with  which  in  this  chapter  I  have  to  deal,  that  it  is 
not  urged  exclusively  by  parties  external  to  our  Church,  but 
jjroceeds  quite  as  much  and  as  often  from  those  within  it  as 
from  those  Avithout.  This  charge  rests  mainly,  though  not 
exclusively,  on  the  three  following  places.  Matt,  xx.,  23 ;  Acts 
ii.,  27;  Heb.  x.,  38.  It  may  be  M^orth  while  to  speak  a  few 
words  severally  upon  each. 

Matt.  XX.,  23. — "To  sit  on  my  right  hand  and  on  my  left 
is  not  mine  to  give,  hut  it  shall  be  given  to  them  for  whom  it 
is  prepared  of  my  Father,"  On  this  rendering,  to  which  the 
Geneva  Version  showed  the  way.  Professor  Scholefield  does 
not  scruple  to  say,"  By  foisting  in  the  supernumerary  words 
[it  shall  be  given],  we  make  the  passage  contain  a  doctrine 
dii'ectly  contrary  to  other  places  of  Scripture :  ex.  gr.,  John 
xvii.,  2;  Rev.  iii.,  21  :"  and  Dr.  Beard:  "The  Calvinism  of 
the  Geneva  Version  stands  out  here  in  bold  relief"*  And, 
indeed,  this  charge  of  something  like  bad  faith  in  our  render- 
ing of  this  passage  reaches  very  far  back.  It  occupies  a 
foremost  place  in  the  array  of  charges  brought  against  our 
version  by  Robert  Gell.f     "  This  translation,"  he  complains, 

*  Revision  of  the  English  Bible,  p.  309, 

t  In  the  Preface,  unpaged,  but  p.  12-17  of  his  Essay  toward  the  Amend- 
vient  of  the  last  English  Translation  of  the  Bible,  folio;  London,  1659.  This 
work  is  chiefly  remarkable  as  being  the  first — the  first,  at  least,  with  which  I 
am  acquainted — which  brings  a  series  of  accusations  of  deliberate  mistransla- 
tion against  the  authors  of  our  version.  The  book,  a  folio  of  more  than 
eight  hundred  pages,  but  containing  exceedingly  little  on  the  subject  which  it 
professes  to  treat,  and  that  little  mainly  having  to  do  with  the  Old  Testament, 
is  not  likely  to  be  in  the  hands  of  many  readers ;  but  those  who  miss  it  have 
not  missed  much.  Gell  was  a  really  learned  man,  but  cross-grained,  ill-tem- 
pered, in  his  reaction  against  Calvinistic  excesses  running  into  dangerous  ex- 
tremes on  the  other  side ;  and  his  works,  if  the  others  may  be  judged  by  this 


1 70      TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

"  makes  our  Lord  absolutely  to  deny  that  he  hath.any  pow- 
er to  give  the  honor  of  sitting  at  his  right  hand  and  left,  and 
so  they  rob  the  Lord  Jesus  of  his  regalia,  his  royalties,  and 
those  honors  which  he  hath  right  and  authority  to  bestow ;" 
with  some  four  pages  more  in  the  same  style,  aggravating 
the  greatness  of  the  offense  which  they  have  herein  commit- 
ted. Now  I  do  not  count  it  necessary  to  discuss  the  correct- 
ness or  incorrectness  of  this  rendering ;  I  will  only  observe 
that  sucli  a  scholar  as  the  present  Bishop  of  Ely,  one  certain- 
ly not  supposed  to  have  any  Calvinistic  leanings,  after  a  full 
and  careful  consideration  purely  grammatical,*  is  disposed  to 
leave  the  passage  as  it  now  stands,  to  supply,  as  our  transla- 
tors have  done,  a  codijfferai  licEiyoiQ,  and  to  reject  the  proposed 
emendation  resting  on  the  assumption  that  aXXa  is  here  =eI 
111].  Meyer,  who  has  certainly  no  doctrinal  interest  to  over- 
bear his  philological,  speaks  with  still  greater  decision  on  the 

sample,  have  their  bushels  of  chaff  with  scarcely  their  grains  of  wheat.  In 
proof,  however,  that  he  has  the  latter,  I  will  quote  here  some  objections  which 
he  makes  against  one  passage  in  our  version,  where  certainly  he  has  right  and 
reason  on  his  side.  I  allude  to  Heb.  x. ,  34  :  "For  ye  .  .  .  took  joyfully  the 
spoiling  of  your  goods,  knoxving  in  yourselves  that  ye  have  in  heaven  a  better 
and  an  enduring  substance."  He  has  right  so  far  as  he  affirms  that  this 
translation  might  be  bettered,  that  tavroiQ,  or  tv  iavroXg,  should  rather  be 
construed  with  t'xf't'  than  with  yiviixTKovrtQ.  "The  words,"  he  says,  "are 
inverted  and  changed  from  the  genuine  order  of  them,  which  is  extant  in  the 
Greek — FivdjcTKOvreg  txeiv  iavroic  Kptirrova  vnap^iv  iv  ovpavoig  koi  fitvovaav, 
which  I  render  thus  :  '  Knowing  that  ye  have  in  yourselves  better  wealth  in 
heaven,  and  that  which  will  endure.'  What  a  difference  is  here!  That 
translation  persuades  men  that  they  shall  have  hereafter  in  heaven  a  better 
kind  of  wealth.  The  true  reading  of  these  words  supposes  believers  to  have 
already  a  real  possession  of  the  better  and  more  enduring  substance  in  them- 
selves, so  that  they  take  the  spoiling  of  their  outward  goods  with  joy ;  .  •  • 
which  order  of  words  is  wholly  neglected  by  all  the  printed  English  transla- 
tions that  I  have  yet  seen  ;  and  hereby  the  sense  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  much 
obscured,  which  points  at  the  present  and  real  possession  of  the  better  and 
durable  riches  which  'Wisdom  hath,  and  brings  with  her  to  the  believing 
soul'  (Prov.  viii.,  10)."  All  this  is  very  good  ;  but  when  Gell  goes  on  to  af- 
firm that  the  mistranslation  was  intentional,  lest  it  might  appear  from  the 
passage,  rightly  translated,  that  there  was  inherent  righteousness  in  God's 
saints,  which  is  a  great  point  with  him,  this  is  only  too  much  of  a  piece  with 
the  whole  tone  of  his  book. 

*  The  Text  of  the  English  Bible  considered,  second  edition,  p.  71-76. 


ON  SOME  UXJUST  CHAMOES,  ETC.  1 7 1 

matter:  "Jesus  weist  hier  die  fragliehe  Bitte  mit  der  unum- 
wundenen  Erklarung  ab :  die  Verleihung  des  gebetenen  ge- 
hore  zu  den  Reservaten  Gottes :  er  der  Messias  habe  diese 
Befugniss  nicht." 

Acts  ii,,  47. — "The  Lord  added  to  the  Church  daily  such 
as  should  be  saved.''^  It  is  urged  against  our  translators  that 
in  the  original  it  is  not  tovq  aujdrjfrofiii'ovQ,  which  would  alone 
have  justified  this  rendering,  but  rove  aoj^ofxit'ovg.  Now  ad- 
mitting, which  many  scholars  would  refuse  to  do,  that  the 
Greek  imjDerfect  participle  can  never  have  the  force  which  is 
given  to  it  here;  admitting,  I  say,  this,  the  explanation  would 
still  be  sufficiently  easy  of  their  slight  departure  from  an  ac- 
curate rendering,  without  ascribing  to  them,  or  those  who 
went  before  them  in  this  translation,  any  undue  dogmatic 
bias.  They  were  i^erplexed  with  a  language  which  spoke  of 
those  as  already  saved  who  only  became  saved  through  be- 
ing thus  added  to  the  Church  of  the  living  God.  They  prob- 
ably did  not  clearly  perceive  that  by  this  language  the  sacred 
historian  meant  to  say  that  in  this  act  of  adherence  to  the 
Church,  and  to  Christ  its  Head,  these  converts  were  saved, 
delivered  from  the  wrath  to  come ;  "  those  that  did  escape," 
Hammond  renders  it.  They  had  no  wish,  except  to  avoid  a 
fancied  difficulty,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  the  thought  of 
predestination,  least  of  all  of  predestination  as  involving  rep- 
robation, once  entered  into  their  minds,  however  others  may 
have  since  employed  the  words  as  a  support  for  the  doctrine. 
Indeed,  it  is  well  worthy  of  note  that  the  Rhemish  Version 
gives  precisely  the  same  future  meaning  to  rove  (ru^ofiivovg, 
and  renders  "  they  that  should  be  saved." 

Heb.  X,,  38. — "  Now  the  just  shall  live  by  faith ;  but  if  any 
man  draw  back,  my  soul  shall  have  no  pleasure  in  him." 
Bishop  Pearson*  brings  a  charge  of  mala  fides  against  Beza, 
the  first  who  rendered  iav  vnoffrtiXrjTai  "  si  quis  se  subduxe- 
rit."  But  if  bad  faith  in  him,  bad  faith  also  in  all  who  ac- 
cepted from  him  this  rendering  of  the  words,  and  became  ac- 
*  Minor  Tlieological  Works,  vol.  ii.,  p.  264. 

Dd 


172       TRENCH  OX  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

cessories  after  the  fact.  The  charge,  not  always  in  language 
quite  so  strong,  reajjpears  continually ;  no  objection  to  the 
entire  good  faith  of  our  translators  is  indeed  oftener  urged. 
In  our  own  times,  Professor  Blunt*  has  not  hesitated  to  af- 
firm that  the  doctrinal  tendencies  of  our  translators  exer- 
cised here  an  unwarrantable  influence  on  their  work.  So, 
too,  the  present  Bishop  of  Ely,  who  has  a  long  and  learned 
note  upon  the  subject,!  plainly  thinks  the  case  not  a  good 
one  for  any  concerned  in  it.  No  unprejudiced  person,  it  is 
said,  can  read  the  verse  in  the  original,  and  not  acknowledge 
that  the  person  whose  drawing  back  is  supposed  possible  in 
the  second  clause  of  the  verse  is  "  the  just"  of  the  first  clause. 
So  Tyndale  had  translated  it:  "But  the  just  shall  live  by 
faith ;  and  if  Ae  withdraw  himself,"  etc.;  Coverdale  and  Cran- 
mer  in  the  same  way.  But  this  verse,  so  rendered,  would 
have  contradicted  the  doctrine  of  final  perseverance ;  and 
therefore,  it  is  said,  in  the  Geneva  Version,  Beza's  way  of 
escape  from  this  conclusion  was  eagerly  grasped  at,  and 
"  any"  there  substituted  for  "  he,"  and  "  any  man"  in  our 
version.  Now  I  certainly  myself  think  that  ckaioc  is  the 
nominative  to  vTroerreiXTirai,  and  that  the  passage  does  contra- 
dict the  doctrine  of  final  perseverance  in  its  high  Calvinistic 
or  necessitarian  shape.  But  to  the  present  day,  the  other 
scheme  of  the  verse,  that,  namely,  of  our  translation,  which 
would  disengage  an  aydpoj-rrog  or  a  r/c  from  3//catoc,  and  make 
it  the  nominative  to  vTroareiXrjrat,  is  maintained  by  scholars 
such  as  De  Wette  and  Winer,J  who  are  certainly  as  remote 
as  well  can  be  from  any  Calvinistic  inclinations. 

There  is,  lastly,  the  charge  made  by  Arians  and  Unitarians. 
I  will  content  myself  here  with  urging  the  fact  that  our  trans- 
lators, so  far  from  pushing  advantages  against  these  too  far, 
if  they  have  erred  any  where,  erred  rather  in  the  opposite  ex- 
treme.    One  passage  has  already  been  dealt  with,  namely, 

*  Duties  of  the  Parish  Priest,  p.  57. 

t  The  Text  of  the  English  Bible  considered.     Cambridge,  1 833,  p.  78-8G. 

t  Gramm.,%  49,  2. 


Oy  SOME  UNJUST  CHABGES,  ETC.  1 73 

Col.  i.,  15,  where  they  have  thus  fallen  short  of  the  force  of 
their  original.  Two  others  present  themselves  to  me,  in  one 
of  which  certainly,  in  the  other  probably,  they  have  done  the 
same. 

The  first  of  these  is  John  v.,  18:  "Therefore  the  Jews 
souo-ht  the  more  to  kill  him,  because  he  not  only  had  broken 
the  Sabbath,  but  said  also  that  God  icas  his  father  {n-aTspa 
'iBiov  tXeye  tov  0eov),  making  himself  equal  with  God."  It  is 
strange  that  our  translators,  who  have  recognized  in  so  many 
places  the  emphatic  character  oi'ilioQ  (as  at  Matt,  xx v.,  14; 
John  i.,41 :  Tit.  ii.,  9 ;  1  Pet.  iii.,  1),  m  some  of  which  it  is  very 
doubtful  whether  this  recognition  ought  to  have  found  place,* 
should  have  failed  to  recognize  it  here,  where  the  whole  con- 
text imperiously  demands  its  recognition.  Unless  Christ  had 
claimed  that  God  was  his  own  father  in  a  special,  peculiar 
sense  not  common  to  him  and  to  all  men,  or  at  least  to  him 
and  all  the  elect  nation,  what  accusation  of  blasphemy  could 
the  Jews  have  founded  npon  this?  for  had  not  God  chal- 
lenged this  name  (Mai.  i.,6),  and  prophets  given  it  to  him? 
or  how  could  the  words  which  follow,  "  making  himself  equal 
with  God,"  which  are  evidently  explanatory  of  the  claim 
which  he  made,  have  fitted  that  vaguer  and  more  general  as- 
sertion of  God  as  his  father  ?  It  is  impossible  to  doubt  that 
there  is  here  on  Christ's  part  an  assertion  that  he  was  God's 
oion  son,  his  son  by  nature^  as  others  are  his  sons  by  adoption 
and  grace.  But  this  assertion  does  not  come  out  in  our  ver- 
sion with  at  all  the  clear  distinctness  which  it  has  in  the  orig- 
inal. 

The  other  passage  is  Tit.  ii.,  13  :  "Looking  for  that  blessed 
hope  and  the  glorious  appearing  of  the  great  God^  and  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ^    This  verse,  thus  punctuated,  and  this 

*  See  Winer,  Gramm. ,  §  22,  7.  Mej-er  demands  that  it  shall  always  be 
considered  emphatic,  never  equivalent  to  the  ' '  proprius"  of  later  Latin.  Yet 
I  can  not  but  see  in  this  an  example  of  that  virtuosity,  that  pushing  of  mat- 
ters to  the  extreme,  which  not  unfrequently  mars  the  exegesis  of  this  very 
distinguished  scholar. 


174      TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

is  the  punctuation  of  the  edition  of  1611,  namely,  with  a  com- 
ma after  "  God,"  does  not  identify,  but  clearly  distinguishes 
between  "  the  great  God,"  that  is,  the  Father,  and  "  our  Sav- 
iour Jesus  Christ."  I  shall  not  enter  into  the  grammatical 
questions  involved  in  this  verse;  they  are  admirably  dealt 
with  by  Professor  Ellicott,  in  loco^  who  shows  that,  while  this 
of  our  translators  must  always  remain  grammatically  a  pos- 
sible rendering  of  the  words,  it  is  far  more  probable  that  they 
should  be  rendered  so  as  to  contain  an  explicit  confession  of 
the  Godhead  of  the  Son,  even  as  they  were  taken  to  do  by 
many  of  the  great  teachers  of  the  early  Church,  namely,  thus: 
"  Looking  for  the  blessed  hope  and  glorious  appearing  of  our 
great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  Modern  editors  of 
the  Authorized  Version  have  sought  to  arrive,  so  far  as  they 
could,  at  the  same  result  by  abolishing  the  comma  after  "  the 
great  God."  But  this  they  have  no  right  to  do.  The  inten- 
tion of  the  authors  of  our  version  was  plainly  the  other  way ; 
and  unacknowledged  revisions  of  this  kind,  even  where  we 
may  think  them  made  in  the  right  direction,  are  altogether 
to  be  condemned. 

I  freely  acknowledge  that  I  have  not  in  this  chapter  an- 
swered all,  or  nearly  all,  the  objections  which  from  these  sev- 
eral quarters  have  been  made  against  our  version,  but  I  have 
endeavored  to  show  that  some,  at  least,  of  those  which  are 
counted  the  strongest,  and,  as  such,  are  oftenest  brought  for- 
ward, are  capable  of  being  successfully  rebutted,  and  would 
fain  draw  from  this  a  conclusion  that  the  spirit  and  temper 
in  which  this  translation  was  carried  out  was,  in  all  its  lead- 
ing features,  one  of  fairness,  impartiality,  and  justice  to  all. 


Oy  THE  BEST  MEAXS  OF  CAEETiyG  OUT  A  REVISION.   175 


CHAPTER  XII. 

ON   THE   BEST  MEANS    OF   CARRYING    OUT   A   REVISION. 

I  HATE  thus  endeavored  to  make  as  just  an  estimate  as  I 
could  of  the  merits,  and,  where  such  exist,  of  the  defects,  of 
our  Authorized  Version.  In  pointing  out  some  of  these  last, 
I  trust  I  have  nowhere  spoken  a  word  inconsistent  with  the 
truest  reverence  for  its  authors,  the  profoundest  gratitude  to 
them  for  the  treasure  with  which  they  have  enriched  the  En- 
glish Church.  Such  Avord  I  certainly  have  not  intended  to 
utter;  and  I  can  truly  say,  that  if  a  close  and  minute  exam- 
ination of  parts  of  their  work  reveals  flaws  which  one  had 
not  suspected  before,  it  also  makes  us  conscious  how  infinite 
its  merits  are,  discovers  to  us  not  a  few  of  these  whereof  we 
had  hitherto  been  only  partially  aware. 

A  few  words  in  conclusion.  They  shall  be,  first,  on  the 
difficulties  and  dangers  which  manifestly  beset  a  revision; 
and,  secondly,  on  the  manner  in  which  these,  or  some  of  these, 
might  be  best  overcome. 

Among  these  difficulties,!  will  not  more  than  touch  on  that 
of  the  formation  of  a  Greek  text  which  the  revised  Version 
should  seek  to  represent;  and  yet  it  is  a  difficulty  of  enor- 
mous magnitude,  and  lying  at  the  very  threshold  of  the  work. 
Let  it  once  be  admitted  that  any  change  is  to  take  place,  and 
it  will  be  clearly  impossible  to  rest  content  with  the  text 
which  our  translators  used.  Take  those  cases  where  every 
critical  edition  of  later  times,  and  on  overwhelming  evidence, 
has  preferred  some  other  readings  to  theirs.  Thus,  could  we, 
for  instance,  refuse  to  change  "King  of  saints'''  into  "King 
of  nations^''  Rev.  xv.,  3  ?  "  zeal"  into  either  "  toil"  or  "  labor," 
Col.  iv.,13?  "carried  aboKt"  into  "carried  «way,"Heb.  xiii., 
9  ?  "  a7i  ass''''  into  "  a  son,'''*  Luke  xiv.,  5  ?  "  Why  callest  thou 


1 76       TEENCH  OX  A  UTH.  VEHSION  OF  XEW  TESTAMENT. 

me  good  ?"  into  "Why  askest  thou  me  about  the  good?"  Matt. 
xix.,  17?  Nor  are  these  cases  of  overwhelming  evidence  by 
any  means  the  hardest.  These  settle  themselves,  leaving  no 
ground  of  appeal  on  behalf  of  the  displaced  reading.  But 
how  determine  where  the  authorities  are  at  all  nearly  bal- 
anced? Shall  it,  for  instance,  be,  "  bore  with  their  manners 
in  the  wilderness,"  or  "  bore  them  as  a  nurse  in  the  wilder- 
ness" (Acts  xiii.,18)?  "serving  the  ^i'me,"  or  " serving  the 
Zorcr  (Rom.  xii.,  11)?  "Greeks,"  or  "Grecians"  (Acts  xi., 
20)  ?  with  many  such  problems  more. 

But  these  are  not  all.  It  is  impossible  but  that  other 
changes  must  find  place,  which  would  take  many  still  more 
by  surprise,  and  be  far  more  offensive  than  any  of  these.  In- 
deed, no  other  alterations  in  the  English  Bible  Avould  at  all 
startle  and  offend  to  the  same  degree  as  would  those  which 
must  follow  from  a  reconsideration  and  reconstitution  of  the 
Greek  text ;  and  this,  even  though  it  should  be  determined 
to  make  no  single  change  which  has  not  the  consenting  au- 
thority of  all  the  critical  editions  in  its  favor.  This  much 
certainly,  if  this  work  is  once  taken  in  hand,  could  not  be 
avoided ;  for  none,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  would  be  so  cowardly, 
so  distrustful  of  God's  cause  if  left  in  his  own  keeping,  so 
ready  to  break  down  the  distinctions  between  God's  Word 
and  man's,  or  to  snatch  at  and  profit  by  unfair  advantages, 
as  to  suggest  that  passages,  if  once  it  was  thoroughly  made 
out  that  they  did  not  belong  to  the  Word  of  God,  or  ought 
to  be  read  in  some  other  form,  should  yet  be  retained  as  they 
are,  either  because  the  people  had  become  so  used  to  them 
that  a  great  outcry  would  ensue  at  the  first  discovery  of  their 
omission  or  alteration,  or,  more  abjectly  still,  because  they 
were  serviceable  for  the  stopping  of  the  mouth  of  some  here- 
tic. Every  sense  of  honor  revolts  at  this  last  suggestion. 
And  yet  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  effect  would  be  start- 
ling when  some  verse  with  which  men  all  their  life  long  have 
been  familiar  was  left  out,  as  Acts  viii.,  37  must  be ;  or  when 
some  phrase,  which  had  seemed  a  precious  witness,  a  dictum 


ON  THE  BEST  MEANS  OF  CARRYING  OUT  A  REVISION.    1 77 

2)robans  for  a  central  trutli,  was  found  now  to  be  so  modified 
as  to  bear  this  witness  no  longer :  "  the  Church  of  God,  which 
he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood,"  for  instance,  to  be 
changed  into  "  the  Church  of  the  Lord,  etc."  (Acts  xx.,  28)  ;* 
or  "  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh"  into  "  who  was  manifest 
in  the  flesh"  (1  Tim.  iii.,  16).f  But,  satisfying  myself  with 
merely  indicating  this  difiiculty,  which  presents  itself  at  the 
A'ery  outset,  I  pass  on  to  others. 

"We  must  never  leave  out  of  sight  that  for  a  great  multi- 
tude of  readers  the  English  Version  is  not  the  translation  of 
an  inspired  Book,  but  is  itself  the  inspired  Book.  And  so 
far,  of  course,  as  it  is  a  perfectly  adequate  counterpart  of  the 
original,  this  is  true,  since  the  inspiration  is  not  limited  to 
those  Hebrew  or  Greek  words  iu  which  the  divine  message 
was  first  communicated  to  men,  but  lives  on  in  whatever 
words  are  a  faithful  and  full  representation  of  these  ;  nay,  in 
words  which  fall  short  of  this,  to  the  extent  of  their  adequacy. 
There,  and  there  only,  where  any  divergence  exists  between 
the  original  and  the  copy,  the  copy  is  less  inspired  than  the 
original ;  indeed,  is  not,  to  the  extent  of  that  divergence,  in- 
spired at  all.  But  these  distinctions  are  exactly  of  a  kind 
which  the  body  of  Christian  people  will  not  draw,  will  hard- 
ly understand  when  they  are  drawn  by  others.  The  English 
Bible  is  to  them  all  which  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament,  which 
the  Greek  New  Testament,  is  to  the  devout  scholar,  and  re- 
ceives from  them  the  same  undoubting  affiance.  They  have 
never  realized  the  fact  that  the  divine  utterance  Avas  not  made 
at  the  first  in  those  very  English  words  which  they  read  in 
their  cottages  and  hear  in  their  church.  Who  will  not  allow 
that  the  little  which  this  faith  of  theirs  in  their  English  Bible 
has  in  excess  is  nearly  or  quite  harmless  ?  that,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  harm  would  be  incalculable  of  any  serious  disturb- 
ance of  this  faith,  supposing,  as  might  only  too  easily  happen, 
very  much  else  to  be  disturbed  with  it? 

*  See  Tregelles,  The  Printed  Text  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  231,  234. 
t  Ibid.,  p.  220-231. 


178      TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Neither  can  I  count  it  an  indifferent  matter  that  a  chief 
bond,  indeed  the  chiefest,  that  binds  the  English  Dissenters 
to  us,  and  us  to  them,  would  thus  be  snapped  asunder.  Out 
of  the  fact  that  Nonconformity  had  not  for  the  most  part  fix- 
ed itself  into  actual  and  formal  separation  from  the  Church 
till  some  time  after  our  Authorized  Version  was  made,  it  has 
followed  that  when  the  Nonconformists  parted  from  us,  they 
carried  with  them  this  translation,  and  continued  to  use  and 
to  cherish  it,  regarding  it  as  much  their  own  as  ours.  The 
Roman  Catholics  are,  I  believe,  the  only  body  in  the  coun- 
try who  employ  a  version  of  their  own.  With  their  excep- 
tion, the  Authorized  Version  is  common  ground  for  all  in 
England  who  call  themselves  Christians — is  alike  the  herit- 
age of  all.  But,  even  if  English  Dissenters  acknowledged 
the  necessity  of  a  revision,  which  I  conclude  from  many  indi- 
cations that  they  do,  it  is  idle  to  expect  that  they  would  ac- 
cept such  at  our  hands.  Two  things,  then,  might  happen. 
Either  they  would  adhere  to  the  old  Authorized-  Version, 
which  is  not,  indeed,  very  probable,  or  they  would  carry  out 
a  revision,  it  might  be  two  or  three,  of  their  own.  In  either 
case,  the  ground  of  a  common  Scripture,  of  an  English  Bible 
which  they  and  we  hold  equally  sacred,  would  be  taken  from 
us;  the  separation  and  division,  which  are  now  the  sorrow, 
and  perplexity,  and  shame  of  England,  would  become  more 
marked,  more  deeply  fixed  than  ever.  Then,  further,  while 
of  course  it  would  be  comparatively  easy  to  invite  our  breth- 
ren of  the  Episcopal  Church  in  America  to  take  share  in  our 
revision,  yet  many  causes  might  hinder  their  acceptance  of 
this  invitation,  or  their  acquiescence  in  the  work  as  we  found 
it  expedient  to  do  it.  Thus  the  issue  might  only  too  easily 
be,  that  we  should  lose  in  respect  of  them  also  the  common 
ground  of  one  and  the  same  Scripture,  which  we  now  pos- 
sess. Such  a  loss,  either  in  regard  of  the  English  Dissenters 
or  American  churchmen,  would  not  be  a  slight  one,  nor  one 
deserving  to  be  regarded  with  indifference. 

Another  most  serious  consideration  presents  itself     Is  it 


ON  THE  BEST  MEANS  OF  CARRYING  OUT  A  REVISION.    179 

likely  that  one  revision  will  satisfy  ?  If  conducted  with  mod- 
eration, it  will  probably  leave  mucli  untouched  about  which 
it  will  still  be  possible  to  raise  a  question.  It  can  not  be 
but  there  will  be  some  who  will  think  the  revision  ought  to 
have  been  carried  much  further — who  will  refuse  to  accept 
the  compromise,  which  a  revision  in  any  case  must  prove.* 
Is  it  not  inevitable  that,  after  a  longer  or  shorter  period,  an- 
other revision,  and  on  that  another,  will  be  called  for  ?  "Will 
not,  in  this  way,  all  sense  of  stability  pass  away  from  our 
English  Scripture  ?  And  to  look  at  a  mere  material  fact — 
the  Bibles  in  the  hands  of  our  people,  in  what  agreement 
with  one  another,  after  a  little  while,  Avill  they  be  ?  It  is  idle 
to  expect  that  the  great  body  of  our  population  will  keep 
pace  with  successive  changes,  and  provide  themselves  with 
the  latest  revision.  Inability  to  meet  the  expense,  or  unwil- 
lingness to  do  so,  or  a  love  of  the  old  to  which  they  have 
grown  accustomed,  a  foregone  conclusion  that  the  changes 
are  for  the  worse  or  that  they  are  immaterial,  lack  of  inter- 
est in  the  subject,  will  all  contribute  to  hinder  this.  The  in- 
conveniences, and  much  more  than  inconveniences,  of  such  a 
state  of  things  assuredly  will  not  be  slight.  This  prospect, 
indeed,  so  little  alarms  the  author  of  an  article  in  the  JEclin- 
burg  Remew^\  "  On  the  State  of  the  English  Bible,"  that  he 
proposes  the  institution  of  a  permanent  commission,  which 
shall  be  always  altering,  always  embodying  in  a  new  and  im- 
proved edition  the  latest  allowed  results  of  Biblical  criticism. 
It  was  startling  enough  to  read  somewhere  else  a  proposal 
that  the  Authorized  Version  should  be  revised  once  in  ev- 
ery fifty  years;  but  this  proposal, if  one  could  suppose  there 
was  the  slightest  chance  that  it  would  be  acceded  to,  is  most 
alarming  of  all. 

These  are  the  main  arguments,  as  it  seems  to  mc,  against 

*  Upon  this  subject,  see  some  admirable  remarks  in  an  article,  "Revision 
of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Bible,"  in  the  Christian  liemembrancer,  vol. 
xxxii.,  p.  4G7  sqq.  The  discussion  on  the  subject,  and  on  the  difficulties 
which  it  presents,  is  excellent  throughout.  t  October,  18.')5. 


1 80      TRENCH  ON  A  UTU.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

a  revision  of  our  version.  None  will  deny  their  weight.  In- 
deed, there  are  times  when  the  whole  matter  presents  itself 
as  so  full  of  difficulty  and  doubtful  hazard  that  one  could 
be  well  content  to  resign  all  gains  that  would  accrue  from 
this  revision,  and  only  ask  that  all  things  might  remain  as 
they  are.  But  this,  I  am  jjersuaded,  is  impossible :  however 
we  may  be  disposed  to  let  the  question  alone,  it  will  not  let 
us  alone.  It  has  been  too  effectually  stirred  ever  again  to 
go  to  sleep ;  and  the  difficulties  with  which  it  is  surrounded, 
be  they  few  or  many,  will  have  at  no  distant  day  to  be  en- 
countered. The  time  will  come  when  the  perils  of  remain- 
ing where  we  are  will  be  so  manifestly  greater  than  the  per- 
ils of  action,  that  action  will  become  inevitable.  There  will 
be  danger  in  both  courses,  for  that  saying  of  the  Latin  mor- 
alist is  a  pi-ofoundly  ti-ue  one,  "  Xunquam  periclum  sine  per- 
iclo  vincitur;"  but  the  lesser  danger  M'ill  have  to  be  chosen, 
and  that  lesser  danger  will  wait  upon  the  course  Avhich  I  de- 
sire, not  that  the  Church  should  now  take,  but  should  pre- 
pare herself  for  hereafter  taking — should  regai'd  as  one  to- 
ward Avhich  we  are  inevitably  approaching.* 

In  respect  of  the  actual  steps  which  it  will  be  then  advisa- 
ble to  take,  I  can  not  think  that,  even  when  the  matter  is 
seriously  undertaken,  there  should,  for  a  considerable  time, 
be  any  interference  Avith  the  English  text.  Let  come  togeth- 
er, and,  if  possible,  not  of  self-will,  but  with  some  authoriza- 
tion, royal  or  ecclesiastical,  or  both,  such  a  body  of  scholars 
and  divines  as  would  deserve  and  would  obtain  the  confi- 
dence of  the  whole  Church.  Fortunately,  no  points  at  issue 
among  ourselves  threaten  to  come  into  discussion  or  debate, 
so  that  the  unhappy  divisions  of  our  time  would  not  here 
add  any  additional  embarrassment  to  a  matter  embarrassed 
enough  already.     Nay,  of  such  immense  importance  would 

*  There  is  an  interesting  article  in  the  Theol.  Studien  tind  Kritiken,  1849, 
p.  427  sqq.,  with  the  title  "Die  Bibel  nach  der  deutschen  Uebersetzung  des 
I).  Martin  Luther, "  dealing  with  the  same  questions,  in  respect  of  the  great- 
ly honored  Geiman  translation  of  Luther,  as  agitate  us  in  respect  of  our  own. 


ON  THE  BEST  MEAXS  OF  CASRTIXG  OUT  A  HE  VISION.    181 

it  be  to  carry  with  us,  in  whatever  might  be  done,  the  whole 
Christian  people  of  England,  that  it  would  be  desirable  to  in- 
vite all  scholars,  all  who  represented  any  important  portion 
of  the  Biblical  scholarship  in  the  land,  to  assist  with  their 
suggestions  here,  even  though  they  might  not  belong  to  the 
Church.  Of  course  they  would  be  asked  as  scholars,  not  as 
Dissenters.  But  it  were  a  matter  so  deeply  to  be  regretted 
that  they  should  revise  and  we  should  revise,  thus  parting 
company  in  the  one  thing  which  now  holds  us  strongly  to- 
gether, while  it  would  be  so  hopeless,  indeed  so  unreasonable, 
to  expect  that  they  should  accept  our  revision,  having  them- 
selves had  no  voice  in  it,  that  we  ought  not  to  stand  on  any 
punctilios  here,  but  should  be  prepared  rather  to  sacrifice  ev- 
ery thing  non-essential  for  the  averting  of  such  a  catastro- 
phe. Setting  aside,  then,  the  so-called  Baptists,  who  of  course 
could  not  be  invited,  seeing  that  they  demand  not  a  trans- 
lation of  the  Scripture,  but  an  interpretation,  and  that  in 
their  own  sense,*  there  are  no  matters  of  doctrine  or  even  of 
discipline  likely  to  come  into  debate  which  should  render  it 
impossible  for  such  Dissenters  as  accept  our  doctrinal  arti- 
cles to  take  a  share  in  this  work,  as  regarded  not  from  its 
ecclesiastical,  but  its  scholarly  point  of  view.    All  points  like- 

*  The  author  of  a  review,  on  the  whole  a  courteous  one,  of  this  book  in  a 
Baptist  journal,  The  Freeman,  November  17, 1858,  assures  me  that  I  am  mis- 
taken in  supposing  that  the  Baptists  claim  to  substitute  "clip,"  "immerse," 
or  "  wash"  for  ' '  baptize"  wherever  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament.  "  Many- 
scholars  among  us — indeed,  all  the  most  eminent  whom  we  happen  to  know, 
are  altogether  indisposed  to  alter  the  word."  I  find  it  hard  to  reconcile 
this  with  the  feet  that  in  t/ieir  revision,  that,  namely,  of  the  American  Bible 
Union,  "baptize"  is  always  changed  into  "immerse,"  and  "baptism"  into 
"  immersion,"  and  "  Baptist"  into  "  Immerser !"  Thus,  in  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Mark  alone,  "John  was  immersing  in  the  desert,  and  preaching  the  immer- 
sion of  repentance,"  i.,  4 ;  "I  indeed  immerse  you  in  water,  but  he  will  im- 
merse you  in  the  Holy  Spirit,"  ver.  8;  "The  head  of  John  the  Immerser" 
vi.,  25;  "He  that  believeth  and  is  immersed  shall  be  saved,"  xvi.,16;  and 
the  same  wherever  I  have  examined  it.  The  writer  of  this  article  has  taken 
some  offense  at  the  phrase  "so-called  Baptists."  Certainly  none  was  in- 
tended ;  but  only  a  protest,  the  shortest  I  could  make,  against  being  sup- 
posed to  admit  that  they  who  assumed  this  name  more  realized  the  truth  of 
baptism,  or  otherwise  made  more  of  it,  than  we  do  ourselves. 


182       TRENCH  ON  A  UTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

ly  to  come  under  discussion  would  be  points  of  pure  scholar- 
ship, or  would  only  involve  that  universal  Christianity  com- 
mon to  them  and  us ;  or,  if  more  than  this,  they  would  be 
points  about  which  there  is  equally  a  difference  of  opinion 
within  the  Church  as  in  the  bodies  without  it,  for  instance, 
as  between  Arminian  and  Calvinist,  which  difference  would 
not  be  avoided  by  their  absence. 

Let,  then,  such  a  body  as  this,  inspiring  confidence  at  once 
by  their  piety,  their  learning,  and  their  prudence,  draw  out 
such  a  list  of  emendations  as  are  lifted  beyond  all  doubt  in 
the  eye  of  every  one  whose  voice  has  any  right  to  be  heard 
on  the  matter — eschewing  all  luxury  of  emendation,  abstain- 
ing from  all  which  is  not  of  primary  necessity,  from  much  in 
which  they  might  have  fitly  allowed  themselves,  if  they  had 
not  been  building  on  foundations  already  laid,  and  which 
could  not,  without  great  inconvenience,  be  disturbed— using 
the  same  moderation,  and  even  the  same  self-denial  here, 
which  Jerome  used  in  his  revision  of  the  Latin.  Let  them 
very  briefly,  but  with  just  as  much  learned  explanation  as 
should  be  needful,  justify  these  emendations  where  they  were 
not  self-evident.  Let  them,  if  this  should  be  their  conviction, 
express  the  sense  of  the  desirableness  that  these  should  at 
some  future  day  be  introduced  into  the  received  text,  as 
bringing  it  into  more  perfect  accord  and  harmony  with  the 
original  Scriptures.  Having  done  this,  let  them  leave  these 
emendations  to  ripen  in  the  public  mind,  gradually  to  com- 
mend themselves  to  all  students  of  God's  holy  "Word.  Sup- 
posing the  emendations  such  as  ought  to,  and  would,  do  this, 
there  would  probably,  before  very  long,  be  a  general  desire 
for  their  admission  into  the  text,  and  in  due  time  this  admis- 
sion might  follow.  All  abrupt  change  would  thus  be  avoid- 
ed— all  forcing  of  alterations  on  those  not  as  yet  prepared  to 
receive  them.  That  which  at  length  came  in  would  excite 
no  surprise,  no  perplexity,  no  offense,  or,  at  most,  a  very 
small  amount  of  these,  having  already,  in  the  minds  of  many, 
displaced  that  of  which  it  now  at  length  took  openly  the 
room. 


ON  THE  BEST  MEANS  OF  CARRYING  OUT  A  REVISION.    igS 

It  is  indeed  quite  true  that  "no  man,  liaAung  drunk  old 
wine,  straightway  desireth  new  ;  for  he  saith,  The  old  is  bet- 
ter ;"  but  it  is  on  "  straightway"  that  the  emphasis,  in  this 
saying  of  our  Lord,  must  be  laid.  In  those  spiritual  things 
to  which  he  intended  that  we  should  transfer  this  saying,  a 
man  may,  and  will,  if  he  is  wise,  after  a  while  desire  the  new. 
It  may  have  a  certain  unwelcome  harshness  and  austerity  at 
the  first ;  the  man  may  have  to  overcome  that  custom  which 
is  as  a  second  nature  before  he  heartily  aifects  it.  But  still, 
just  as  the  Western  Church  accepted  in  a  little  Jerome's 
revision  of  the  Latin  Version,  notwithstanding  the  opposition 
which  it  met  at  the  first,*  and  even  the  uproar  and  extreme 
confusion  in  the  churches  which  its  first  introduction  would 
sometimes  cause  when  some  novelty  took  the  place  of  a  read- 
ing with  which  all  were  familiar,  or,  to  come  nearer  home, 
just  as  our  ancestors  grew  gradually  in  love  with  our  pres- 
ent translation,  churchmen  weaning  themselves  from  the 
Bishops'  Bible,  and  Puritans  from  the  Geneva — as  one  and 
the  other  of  these  versions  fell  quite  out  of  use,  churchmen 
and  Puritans  finally  agreeing  in  the  decision,  not  that  the  old 
was  better,  but  the  new — so  will  it  be  here.  "What  amount 
of  difficulty  those  who  lived  in  the  reign  of  James  the  First 
found  in  reconciling  themselves  to  the  change  it  is  hard  to 
say.  That  the  old  versions  had  struck  deep  root  in  the  afiec- 
tions  of  many  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  Bishops'  Bi- 
ble, if  I  mistake  not,  sometimes,  and  the  Geneva  Bible  cer- 
tainly many  times,  wei'e  reprinted,  even  after  they  had  been 
formally  superseded  by  the  present  version.  With  the  ex- 
ception of  this  testimony,  we  have  singularly  little  on  the 
subject  in  the  contemporary  religious  literature,  the  very  ab- 
sence of  such  notices  seeming  to  imply  that  the  difficulty 
was  not  very  great.  In  one  respect  it  ought  to  be  much 
smaller  now,  inasmuch  as,  careful  as  King  James's  transla- 
tors were  not  to  change  wantonly,  and  for  mere  change's 
sake,  still  the  alterations  which  they  made  were  consider- 
*  See  Van  Ess,  Geschichte  der  F«</^a<a,  Tubingen,  182-t,  p.  109-145. 


184       TRENCH  ON  A  UTR.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

able,  many  times  more  than  would  be  necessary  or  desirable 
now. 

And  even  if  it  were  never  thought  good  that  this  final  step 
should  be  taken,  that  these  emendations  should  be  transplant- 
ed into  the  text,  if  I  am  mistaken  in  imagining  such  an  issue 
one  sooner  or  later  not  to  be  averted,  what  an  invaluable 
help  to  earnest  students  of  Scripture  such  a  volume  might 
prove !  With  a  little  management,  its  more  learned  portions 
might  be  so  separated  off  in  notes  as  to  leave  the  substance 
of  it  accessible  even  to  the  English  reader,  who  might  thus 
be  jiut  in  possession,  though  in  a  somewhat  roundabout  and 
less  effectual  way,  of  all  which  a  revision  Avould  have  given 
him.  If,  too,  he  had  been  shaken  by  rumors  of  the  inaccura- 
cy of  his  English  Bible,  he  might  here  see,  on  the  warrant  of 
those  best  qualified  to  judge,  how  very  little  way  this  inac- 
curacy reached,  in  what  comparatively  unessential  matters 
it  moved ;  or,  if  this  could  not  always  be  asserted,  yet  this 
much  might,  that  a  revision  of  his  Bible  would  not  draw  aft- 
er it,  even  in  the  minutest  particular,  a  revision  of  his  creed. 
Granting  that  nothing  else  should  come  of  it,  such  a  volume 
might  prove  an  effectual  check  to  wanton  and  mischievous 
agitations,  to  disquieting  suggestions  that  a  revised  Bible 
would  present  God's  truth  in  other  lights  from  those  in 
which  it  is  presented  now,  and,  as  such,  the  advantage  of  it 
might  be  great. 

Nor  is  it  at  all  impossible  that  the  very  unsettlement  of 
men's  minds,  consequent  upon  the  stirring  of  this  question, 
might  be  found  to  bring  with  it  some  compensating  gain. 
This  putting  to  the  proof  of  the  words  in  which  God's  mes- 
sage had  hitherto  been  conveyed  to  them,  might  it  not  for 
some  be  a  motive  to  a  more  accurate  and  thoughtful  consid- 
ering of  the  message  itself?  It  would  not,  I  imagine,  be  for 
most  of  us  unprofitable  to  discover  that  the  words  in  which 
the  ti'uth  has  hitherto  reached  us  are  exchangeable  for  other, 
in  some  places,  it  may  be,  for  better,  words.  The  shock,  un- 
pleasant and  unwelcome  as  it  would  perhaps  prove  at  the 


ox  THE  BEST  JfEAXS  OF  CARRYING  OUT  A  REVISION.    155 

first,  might  yet  be  a  startling  of  many  from  a  dutl,  lethargic, 
unprofitable  reading  of  God's  Word ;  a  breaking  up  of  that 
hard  crust  of  formality  which  so  easily  overgrows  our  study 
of  the  Scripture ;  while  in  the  rousing  of  the  energies  of  the 
mind  to  defend  the  old,  or,  before  admitting,  thoroughly  to 
test  the  new,  more  insight  into  it  might  be  gained,  with  more 
grasp  of  its  deeper  meaning,  than  years  of  lazy  familiarity 
would  have  given.  For,  indeed,  according  to  a  profound 
proverb,  "  what  is  ever  seen  is  never  seen ;"  and  a  daily  fa- 
miliarity with  Scripture,  full  as  it  is  of  innumerable  blessings, 
carries,  like  each  other  privilege,  its  dangers  with  it — dangers 
which  the  course  here  recommended  might  contribute  much 
to  remove. 

Thus  much  I  have  thought  it  desirable  to  say  on  this  mo- 
mentous subject.  I  am  not  so  sanguine  as  to  believe  that, 
with  all  precautions  taken,  great  and  serious,  it  might  be 
quite  unexpected,  difiiculties  would  not  attend  this  enter- 
prise. There  would  need  no  little  wisdom  and  prudence  to 
bring  it  to  a  successful  end.  Still  it  might  be  humbly  hoped 
that  by  Him  who  is  ever  with  his  Church  this  prudence  and 
this  wisdom  would  be  granted.  And,  lastly,  let  me  observe 
that  when  we  make  much  of  the  inconveniences  which  must 
wait  upon  any  such  step,  we  ought  never  to  leave  out  of 
sight  their  transitory  character,  as  contrasted  with  the  per- 
manent character  of  the  gain.  How  large  an  amount  of  in- 
convenience men  have  willingly  encountered  with  only  some 
worldly  object  in  view,  where  they  have  felt  that  the  incon- 
venience would  be  merely  temporary,  the  gain  enduring — as 
in  the  rectification  of  the  coinage,  the  readjustment  of  the 
calendar.  And  here  too,  serious  as  the  inconvenience  might 
be  at  the  first,  and  during  the  period  of  transition,  still  it 
would  every  day  be  growing  slighter;  it  would  be  but  for  a 
few  years  at  the  longest ;  while  the  gain,  always  supposing 
the  work  to  be  well  and  wisely  done,  would  be  forever ;  it 
would  be  riches  and  strength  for  the  English  Church  to  the 
end  of  time. 


APPENDIX 


At  a  time  like  tlie  present,  wlien  tlie  subject  of  tlie  Revision  of  tlie 
Aiitliorizcd  Version  is  occupying  so  mucli  attention,  it  might  be  in- 
teresting to  some  to  have  before  them  a  tolerably  coiTect  list  of  works 
bearing  on  the  subject,  which  have  been  published  in  this  country  or 
in  America,  either  urging  a  revision  or  dissuading  one,  or  showing  by 
actual  example  how  such  might  be  carried  out.  The  list  is  as  com- 
plete as  I  could  make  it,  and  thus  includes  not  merely  works  of  im- 
portance, but  also  some  which  are  of  comparatively  slight  value  or  of 
none.  I  have  not  considered  that  entirely  new  translations  belong 
fitly  to  this  list,  but  only  those  which  accejit  our  Version  as  a  basis 
and  point  of  dejjarture,  and  thus  in  their  agreement  with,  or  dissent 
from  it,  may  be  regarded  as  offering  a  nmning  commentary  and 
criticism  upon  it. 

An  Essay  toward  the  Amendment  of  the  last  English  Translation  of  the  Bible, 
by  Robert  qpll,  P-T)-     Folio.     London,  1G59. 

Errata  of  the  Protestant  Bible,  by  Thomas  ^Yard.     4to.     London,  1G88. 

An  Essay  for  a  New  Translation  of  the  Bible,  by  H.  R.  [Hugh  R.02S ;  see  Todd's 
Life  of  Bishop  Walton,  vol.  i.,  p.  IS-t],  a  Minister  of  the  Church  of  England.     1702. 

A  New  and  Literal  Translation  of  all  the  Books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
with  Notes  critical  and  explanatorj',  by  Anthony  Purver.  Folio,  2  vols.  London, 
1764.  " 

Prospectus  of  a  New  Translation  of  the  Holy  Bible,  by  the  Rev.  Alexander 
Geddes.     4to.     Glasgow,  1786. 

Letter  to  the  Right  Rev.  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London  [Bishop  Lowth],  being  an 
Appendix  to  a  Prospectus  of  a  New  Translation,  by  the  same.    4to.    London,  1787. 

Reasons  for  revising  by  Authority  our  present  Version  of  the  Bible.  8vo. 
Cambridge,  1788. 

Observations  on  the  Expediency  of  revising  the  present  English  Version  of  the 
Four  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  by  John  Symonds,  Professor  of  Modern 
History  in  the  University  of  Cambridge.     4to.     Cambridge,  1789. 

A  Historical  View  of  the  English  Biblical  Translations,  the  Expediency  of  re- 
vising by  Authority  our  present  Translation,  and  the  means  of  executing  such  a 
Revision,  by  Wilham  Newcnme,  Bishop  of  Waterford.     8vo.     Dublin,  1792. 

Obser\'ations  on  ihe  Expediency  of  revising  the  present  English  Version  of  the 
Epistles,  by  the  same.     4to.     Cambridge,  1794. 

Ee 


1 88       TRENCH  ON  A  VTH.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Ely  on  the  Subject  o"  a  Xew  and  Authoritative  Trans- 
lation of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  by  George  Surges.     8vo.     Peterborough,  1796. 

lleraarks  upon  the  Critical  Principles  adopted  by  Writers  who  have  at  various 
times  recommended  a  Xew  Translation  of  the  Bible  as  expedient  and  necessary,  by 
Archbishop  Lawrence.     8vo.     Oxford,  1820. 

Reasons  why  a  New  Translation  of  the  Bible  should  not  be  published  without  a 
previous  Examination  of  all  the  material  Passages  v.'hich  may  be  supposed  to  be 
misinterpreted.     8vo.     Durham,  1816. 

Biblical  Gleanings,  by  Thomas  Werm^s^  8vo.     York,  1816. 

Reasons  .in  favor  of  a  New  Translation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  by  Sir  J.  B. 
Burgess.     8vo.     Loudon,  1819. 

A  Vindication  of  our  Authorized  Translation  of  the  Bible,  \)y  the  Rev.  Henry 
John  Todd.     8vo.     London,  1819. 

The  Holy  Bible  in  the  Common  Version,  with  Amendments  of  the  Language,  by 
Noah  Webster.     8vo.     New  ILiven,  1833. 

A  Supplement  to  the  Authorized  English  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  by  the 
Rev.  Frederick  Henry  Scrivener.     London,  1845. 

Hints  for  an  Improved  Translation  of  the  New  Testament,  by  the  Rev.  James 
Scholefield.     3d  edition.     London,  1850. 

A  Vindication  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  English  Bible,  by  the  Rev.  S.  C. 
ya1{l"      London,  1856. 

Biblical  Revision:  Considerations  in  favor  of  a  Revised  Translation  of  Holy 
Scripture,  by  Edward  Slater.     London,  1856. 

The  State  of  the  English  Bible,  by  the  Rev.  W.  Harness.     London,  1856. 

Notes  on  the  proposed  Amendment  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  by  William  Selwyn,  Canon  of  Ely.     8vo.     Cambridge,  1856. 

Bible  Revision  and  Translation  •.  an  Argument  for  holding  fast  what  we  have, 
by  the  Rev.  John  Cumming.     8vo.     London,  1856, 

A  Plea  for  the  Revisal  of  the  Translation  of  the  Bible  of  1611,  by  F.  Iliflf.  8vo. 
Sunderland.  1857. 

The  Gospel  according  to  St.  John,  after  the  Authorized  Version,  newly  compared 
with  the  original  Greek  and  revised,  by  Five  Clergymen.  8vo.  2d  edition. 
London,  1857. 

The  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Romans,  after  the  Authorized  Version,  newly 
compared  with  the  original  Greek  and  revised,  by  Five  Clergj'men.  8vo.  Lon- 
don, 1858. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  after  the  Authorized  Version,  newly 
compared  with  the  original  Greek  and  revised,  by  Five  Clergymen.  8vo.  Lon- 
don, 1858.  —___—— 

A  Revised  English  Bible  the  Want  of  the  Church  and  the  Demand  of  the  Age, 
by  John  R.  Beard,  D.D.     Small  8vo.     London,  1857. 

Revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Bible :  an  Article  in  the  Christian 
Rememh-ancer,  1856,  p.  451^99. 

The  New  Testament,  revised  from  the  Authorized  Version  with  the  aid  of  other 
Translations,  by  Edgar  Taylor.     Small  8vo.     London.     No  date. 

A  Plea  for  an  Edition  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  Holy  Scripture,  with  ex- 
planatory and  cmendatory  marginal  Notes,  by  the  Rev.  G.  E.  Biber.  8vo.  Lon- 
don, 1857. 


APPENDIX.  139 

Reasons  for  holding  fast  the  Authorized  English  Version  of  the  Bible,  by  Alex- 
ander JTCauLD.D.     London,  1857. 

Revision  of  the  Holy  Scriptures;  an  Argumeni  against  Objectors,  by  the  Rev. 
IT.  Burgess.     8vo.     1857. 

The  English  Bible  and  our  Duty  with  regard  to  it,  by  Fhilalethes.  8vo.  Dub- 
lin, 1857. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  translated  from  the  Greek  on  the  Basis  of  the 
Common  English  Version,  with  Notes,  4to.  New  York,  American  Bible  Union, 
1857. 

The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  translated  from  the  Greek  on  the  Basis  of  the 
Common  English  Version,  with  Notes.  4to.  New  York,  American  Bible  Union, 
1857. 

The  Gospel  according  to  Mark,  translated  from  the  Greek  on  the  Basis  of  the 
Common  English  Version,  with  Notes.  4to.  New  York,  American  Bible  Union, 
1858. 

The  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  the.  Epistles  of  John  and  Judas,  and  the  Revelation, 
translated  from  the  Greek  on  the  Basis  of  the  Common  English  Version,  with 
Notes.     4to.     Loudon,  185G. 

The  Epistles  of  Paul  to  the  Thessalonians,  translated  from  the  Greek  on  the 
Basis  of  the  Common  English  Version,  with  Notes.     4to.     London,  1858. 


INDEX. 


I.  PRINCIPiy:i  TEXTS  CONSIDERED. 


X'^ 


Matt,  v.,  15, 16 85 

"   v.,  21 108 

"   vi.,25 36 

"  -  vi.,27 13i 

"   vui.,20 147 

«   ix.,36 108 

"   x.,4 147 

"   x.,9 125 

"   x.,16 109 

"   xii.,23 132 

x*.T,8 148 

xiv.,13 149 

xiv.,24. 28 

"   xvi.,  15 65 

"   xviii.,33 85 

"   xix.,  17 176 

"   XX.,  1,11 85 

"   XX.,  23 169 

"   xxi.,41 83 

"   xxii.,3,4,13..  91 

"   xxiiL,  24 149 

"   xxiii.,  25 43 

"   xxviii.,  14 ... .  99 

Mahk  i.,  10 28 

ii.,18 126 

iii.,  18 147 

vi.,  20 109 

vii,  4 

xi.,  4 

xi.,  17 


> 


110 
151 
101 
xii.,26 151 


xiv.,72. 
xvi.,  2. 


99 
127 


Luke  i.,  19 127 

"  i.,59 126 

"  ii.,  49 135 

"  v.,6 126 

"  viii,,31 80 

"  xi.,17 99 

"  xi.,48 43 

"  xii.,25 134 

J  "  xiii.,  2 127 


Luke  xiii.,  7  •. 
xiv.,  7  , 


PafP 

37 
126 
101 
110 
125 


John 


120 
132 
128 
173 


Acts 


xvi.,  1 
xvii.,21. 
xviii.,  12 

xxi.,  19 125 

xxiii.,  33 73 

xxiii,,  42 .-...,.  122 

i.,3,4 106 

iL,  8,  9 85 

iii.,  10 116 

iii.,  11, 32 

iv.,  6 

iv.,29,... 

v.,  16 

v.,  18 

viii.,58 131 

ix..  31 55 

x.,16 96 

xii.,6 135 

xiv.,  18 110 

xvi.,  8 Ill 

xvii.,12.>'. 96 

i.,  4 106 

ii.,47 171 

iii.,  1 126 

iii.,  13,  26 95 

iv.,27,30 95 

vii.,  45 67 

x.,12. 


....  129 

xi.,  20 176 

xii.,  4 45 


xii.,19 105 

xiii.,  18 176 

xiv.,  15 151 

xvii.,1 117 

xvii.,18 81,136 

xvii.,19 69 

xvii,,  21 29 

xvii.,  22 152 

xvii.,  23 38,82 

xix.,  37 39 


Acts 


Pnee 

177 

102 
39 
99 


EOM. 


XX.,  28 

xxi.,  3 , 

xxi.,  15 

xxiii.,  27. . . 

xxv.,  5 152 

xxvi.,2,7...119,120 

xxviL,9 100 

xxvii.,  10,  21 . . .  84 
xxviii.,  4 124  J 

i.,26,27 137 

ii.,14 119 

ii.,22 152 

iii.,  25 93 

iv.,1-24 80 

v.,  15,17 117 

viiL,  21 72 

xi.,  2 151 

xi.,8 153 

xii.,  11 176 

XV.,  4. 84«' 


1  CoK.  iii.,  17 . . 
"  iv.,  4 . . . 
"  xi.,  27 . . 
"   xiii.,  12. 


82 

40 

166 

138 


2CoK.ii.,14 139 

"   ii.,17 140 

"   iii.,  5, 6 83 

"   v.,  10 129 

"   xi.,  3 . , 123 

GAL.i.,6 122 

''■    i.,18 154 

"  ii.,  6,  9 160 

"  iii.,  22. 83 

«  v.,6 166 

"  v.,  19,  20 154  ^ 

Epiies.  iii.,14,15 26 

"   iv.,3 40 

"   iv.,18 102 

"   iv.,29 155 


192      TREXCII  OX  A  UTII.  VERSION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


Pane 

Phil,  ii.,  3 5G 

"     ii..l3 84 

"     ii.;i5 128 

"     iii..5 120 

"     iv.,  3 15G 

Col.  i.,  13 72 

"  i.,  15 157 

"  i.,16 128 

"   ii.,  8 142 

"   ii.,18 Ill 

'•   ii.,  23 142 

"  iv.,13 175 

1  THESS.iv.,  6 112 

"  v.,  22 102 


2  Thess.  ii., ".. 
"  ii-.G.. 


106 
84 


1  Ti.M.iii.,  16: 177 

"       iv.,1,2,3 158 

"       v.,  4 41 

"       v.,  13 106 

"       vi.,2 117 

"       vi.,5 103 

"      vi.,8 143 

"      vi.,9 43 


Pnsre 

1  Tim.  vi.,  10 110 


Titus  ii..  13 17^ 


Heb 


ii.,  16 144 

iv,,l 105 

iv.,  8 .    67 

v.,  2 113 

v.,  8 54 

v.,  11 131 

vi.,7 121 

ix.,  5 56 

ix.,  23 103 

x.,34 170 

x.,38 171 

xi.,10 116 

xi.,  13 104 

xi.,29 159 

xii.,23 133 

xiii.,  4 165 

xiii.,  9 175 


James  i.,  4,  5 . 
"  i.,13.. 
"  i.,  26 . . 
"  ii.,  2. 3. 
'•      iii.,5.. 


84 
100 
160 

85 
145 


James  v.,  9 45 

1  Pet.  i.,  17 105 

«      ii.,4,5 4Sy 

"      iii.,  16 161 

"      iv.,9 45 


2  Pet.  i.,  5-7  , 
"  i.,14... 
"  iii.,  12 . 
"      iii.,  16 . 


123 

127 

113 

29 


1  John  v,  15 55 

Jlde  12 161- 

Kev, 


i.,18 

..  22 

iii.,  2 

. .  145 

iv.,  4 

..  80 

iv.,  5 

. .  124 

iv.,6-9 

..  91 

vii.,  14 

..  115 

XV.,  2 

. .  120 

XV.,  3 

..  175 

xvi.,  2 

..  44 

xxi.,  12 

..  .')7 

xxi.,  19, 20  . . 

..  70 

'AftvaaoQ 80 

ayytXoQ. 23 

^SrjQ 21,22 

aKepaioQ 109 

aWoTpiOiTziaicoiTOQ  . .    25 

dfiipodog 151 

CLTrdyu 105 

aTreiOtia 92 

aTTicfria 92 

dTTOKapadoKia 106 

dpuoQ  irdyog 69 

dffffdpiov 63 

av\r] 96 

jSairrd^w 136 

(SdroQ 151 

yhvva 21,22 

yivofiai 130 

ypa/j/jiaTivg 63 

dHfftdalfiwv 152 

diXid'i^u) 88 


It.  GREEK  WORDS. 

did .'.  121 

ctdKovog 91 

Siv\ic,io 150 

SiXOffTUffia 154 

SoKiOt). 160 

SoXoto 141 

SoiiXog 91 

Svvarog 152 

h8oc 102 

eig 122 

tXiyii) Ill 

iv 122 

ivtpyiofiai 166 

iiri 120 

tTTiyivuxTKU),  iiriyvw- 

mc 27 

tTriXaiijidvof.iai 144 

'Epjiijg 63 

ippi/Afiivog 108, 109 

(ffOTrrpov 138 

irtpo^daXftog 20, 21 

iVKmp'iui 28 


ivTrtpiff-arog 25 

L;wov 90,91 

?/XtKta 134 

Orjpiov 91 

OpiafifSevu) 139 

Gpovog 80 

iepoffvXeu , 153 

idTOpku) 154 

Kavavirtjg 148 

Kant]Xfvti) 140 

Karafipa^ivu) 112 

Kardvv^ig 153 

Karairivu 159 

KarapystA) 89 

KaraoKTivwaig 147 

KdroTTvpov 138 

kXIvi) 110 

KoSpd.vTiig 63 


Pace 
KodlVOQ 94 

KTaofiai 125 

Ki/piog 78 

Xoyof 19. 

KoyiZoj.iai 80 

jiayoq  . .-. 23 

fiiravoia 18 

j-itTptOTraGtio 113 

fiovotpOakiioQ 20 

viwKopoc C3 

v/jLoiOTraOfig 152 


INDEX. 

Page 

oprpavoQ 110 

TrnTf  Qtov 95 

7rapaK\r)T0C 23 

Trnpfdii; 96 

TTtZ^. 149 

■Ko'tjxvt) 96 

7rpol3ti3uZ^   118. 149 

TrpujroTOKog 157 

irwpwaiQ 102 

oapciog,(xaphvoQ 71 

a'ijiaafia 38 

(TKEiraafia 143 

ao<p6e 9-2,93 


193 

Page 

ffirepixoXoyoQ 13() 

ffirv()ic 94 

(TvXaywyho 142 

(rvvrrjpioj 109, 110 

rypew 97 

vXt] 145 

ii-jToSiiyna 103 

(paiuonai 129.  IGO 

(fkvapoQ 100 

(pGivoTTiopivu^. . . .  IG],  162 

(ppurifioc 93 

ipv\d(J(TM 96 


Allow 43 

Alms 54 

Apollo,  ApoUos 69 

Babbler, 136 

Beast 90 

Briber}' 43 

By 40 

By-and-by 44 

Calvary 73 

Canaanite 147,148 

Candy 107 

Carriage 39 

Cherubims 56 

Chrj-solite 71 

Chrj-soprasus 7) 

Church 39 

Comforter 24 

Convince Ill 

Cretes,  Crctians 60 

Cumber 37 

Depart 43 

Devotion 38 

Each 56,57 

Easter 45 

Elias,  Elijah 66 

Endeavor 40 

Every 66, 57 


III.  OTHER  WORDS. 

Flix 59 

Fourmiller 25 

Goodman  of  the 

Hoi  bE 85 

Grudge   44 

Idol 167 

Image 167 

Its 52,53 

Jesus 67 

Jewry 45 

Joshua 67 


Kinked. 
Lively . 


T\[ercurius 63 

INIiletum 70 

Moe,  more. 59 

Nazarexe 107 

Nazarite 107 

Nephew 41 

Noisome 43 

Often 54 

Paraclete 24 


Pattern 103 

Pavaner,  pavonear. ...    25 

Pergamos 70 

Pcenitentia 18 

Primesautier 26 

Reflexion 49 

Eeligious 152 

Reprove Ill 

Resipiscentia 18 

Riches 54 

Sardine  stone 71 

Sardius 71 

Sedition 154 

Sermo 18 

Shamefastness 59 

Slave 92 

Thought 3G 

Three  Taverns 71 

Timotheus,  Timothy  .    69 

Trifler lOG 

Trouble 98 

Urbane 68 

Yerbuji 18 

Which 58 

Wizard 23 


THE    END. 


CONSIDERATIONS 


THE  REVISION 


ENGLISH  VERSION 


NEW   TESTAMENT. 


BY 

C.   J.   ELLICOTT,   D.D,, 

BISHOP  OF  GLOTJOESTEH  AND  BKI8T0L. 


NEW    YORK: 

HARPER  &  BROTHERS,    PUBLISHERS, 

FRANKLIN     SQUAHE. 

1873. 


TO  THE  MEMORY, 


EVER  FRESH  AND  EVER  TO  BE  HONORED, 


WILLIAM   TYNDALE, 


GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 


PREFACE. 


The  following  work  is  written  to  supply  a  need  which, 
at  the  present  time,  may  be  felt  by  many.  We  seem  to 
need  a  Hand-book  which,  in  an  easy  and  popular  manner, 
and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  with  reasonable  accuracy,  might 
put  before  us  the  whole  subject  of  the  Kevision  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures. 

This  work  aspires  to  be  such  a  Hand-book  in  reference 
to  the  New  Testament.  It  has  two  main  objects  :  First, 
to  give  the  general  reader  that  competent  knowledge  of 
the  subject  which  may  enable  him  to  enter  into  the  pres- 
ent movement  with  interest  and  intelligence.  Secondly,  to 
place  on  record  some  experiences  that  were  acquired  by 
the  writer  when  engaged  with  others  in  an  attempt  to  re- 
vise some  portions  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New 
Testament.  Such  experiences,  it  is  humbly  believed,  will 
be  found  useful  at  the  present  time,  and  may  be  perhaps 
permitted  to  minister  some  guidance  to  individual  scholars 
who  may  be  called  upon  to  take  part  in  the  Revision  now 
recommended  by  Convocation. 

These  are  the  two  objects  of  the  present  work — to  place 
generally  before  the  reader  the  work  that  has  to  be  done, 
and  also  to  offer  to  those  who  may  be  actually  engaged  in 
it  some  few  hints  as  to  the  mode  of  carrying  out  the  work. 


vi  PREFACE. 

It  is  proper  to  state  that  the  work  has  been  composed  in 
the  midst  of  many  other  pressing  duties  and  occupations ; 
and  that  lionrs  snatched  from  daily  work,  or  secured  before 
the  day's  duties  could  commence,  are  all  that  have  been 
at  the  disposal  of  the  writer 'for  the  compilation  of  these 
notes  and  considerations.  It  is  hoped  that  no  serious  inac- 
curacies will  be  found  on  the  pages  that  follow,  but  it  is 
frankly  owned  that  the  work  has  been  written  promptly — 
for  the  need  seemed  real  —  and  that  it  has  been  written 
concurrently  with  some  of  the  events  to  which  it  alludes. 
It  was  commenced  a  short  time  after  the  first  meeting  of 
Convocation  this  year,  and  it  was  concluded  shortly  after 
its  second  meeting.  The  time  has  thus  been  limited ;  but 
if  the  book  was  to  do  any  good,  or  to  exercise  any  useful 
influence,  its  publication  could  not  have  been  longer  de- 
layed. 

It  does  not  seem  necessary  to  make  remarks  on  any  part, 
except  on  the  samples  of  revision  that  have  been,  some- 
what courageously,  submitted  to  the  j  udgment  of  the  read- 
er. Great  care  has  been  bestowed  upon  them,  but  it  is  felt 
very  honestly  that  they  themselves  will  probably  disclose  de- 
parture^  from  principles  that  may  have  been  urged  a  few 
pages  before.  It  must  be  so.  The  individual  reviser  is 
always  liable  to  subjective  influences  that  give  a  tinge  to 
his  judgment  when  the  special  passage  is  under  his  con- 
sideration, and  the  present  reviser  can  not  dare  to  hope 
that  he  himself,  even  in  these  few  chapters,  has  proved  to 
be  free  from  them.  So  the  passages  are  given  honestly  as 
samples,  and  nothing  more ;  not  as  the  tv-riter's  ideal  of  a 
true  revision,  but  as  the  best  exempliflcation  he  could  give 
of  his  own  rules. 


PREFACE.  yii 

The  critical  scholar  is  thus  asked  kindly  to  pass  his  judg- 
ment on  these  passages,  as  being  what  is  here  specified,  and 
as  claiming  to  be  nothing  more. 

This  small  volume  is  now  offered  to  those  who  are  inter- 
ested in  the  subject  of  Revision,  and  also,  with  all  humili- 
ty, is  placed  before  the  Churcli  at  large  as  a  small  effort  in 
a  great  (;ause  that  will  soon  largely  occupy  the  thouglits, 
and,  it  is  hoped,  will  receive  the  prayers  of  all  earnest  and 
devout  readers  of  the  Holy  Bible. 

May  the  blessing  of  God  rest  on  the  great  and  lioly 
cause ;  and  if  it  be  not  presumptuous  to  add  the  words, 
may  it  also  he  vouchsafed  to  this  contribution  to  tlie  gen- 
eral subject,  humbly  offered  by  one  whose  heart,  at  any 
rate,  is  thoroughl}^  in  the  cause  and  in  the  work. 

C.  J.  Gloucestek  and  Beistol. 

London,  May  23, 1870. 


CONTENTS. 


CUiPTER  PAGE 

I.  Introduction 11 

II.  The  Critical  Valie  of  the  Text  of  the  Authorized  Version.     33 

III.  Leading  Characteristics  of  the  Authorized  Version 52 

IV.  Nature  and  Limits  of  Eevision 85 

V.  Amount  of  Correctipns  likely  to  be  Introduced 107 

VI.  Objections  to  Revision,  Valid  and  Invalid 151 

VII.  Best  Manner  of  Proceeding  with  the  Work 1C5 

Ff 


REVISION 

OF   THE 

ENGLISH  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

On  the  10th  of  February  in  the  present  year  [1870]  the 
Recent  move-  followingr  resolution,  proposed  by  the  Bishop  of 

ment  in  the       .^^  =  '  ^ ,    ^  ,         ,  .  „    , 

question.  Winchester  and  seconded  by  the  writer  oi  these 
pages,  was  carried  unanimously  by  both  houses  of  the  Con- 
vocation of  Canterbury,  viz., "To  report  upon  the  desirable- 
ness of  a  Revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  whether  by  marginal  notes  or  otherwise,  in 
all  those  passages  where  plain  and  clear  errors,  whether  in 
the  Hebrew  or  Greek  text  originally  adopted  by  the  trans- 
lators, or  in  the  translations  made  from  the  same,  shall,  on 
due  investigation,  be  found  to  exist." 

That  such  a  resolution  will  in  due  time  be  followed  by  sys- 
tematic and  organized  effort  in  the  actual  work  of  revision 
can  hardly  be  doubted.  The  general  tone  of  the  discussion, 
the  prevailing  unanimity,  though  not  without  a  full  recogni- 
tion of  the  difficulties  that  surround  the  question,*  the  deep- 

*  The  difficulties  and  leading  objections  were  stated  both  by  the  Bishop  of 
Winchester  and  the  Bishop  of  St.  David's.  The  latter,  with  his  usual  acute- 
ness,  gave  prominence  to  the  only  objection,  which,  as  will  be  seen  below  (see 
chap,  vii.),  has  any  real  weight,  viz.,  that  such  a  revision  might  involve  the 
necessity  of  continual  revisions.  The  bishop,  however,  fully  supported  the 
resolution,  and  expressed  his  belief  that  a  judicious  revision  would  be  a  great 
advantage  both  in  regard  of  the  public  and  private  reading  of  the  Scriptures. 
See  the  report  in  the  Guardian  for  Feb.  16,  and  in  the  John  Bull  for  Feb.  12, 
p.  170. 


1 2        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  TEE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

ening  interest  in  the  subject  that  has  already  shown  itself, 
the  expressions  of  public  opinion  in  the  leading  journals,*  all 
point  to  one  certain  issue — that  ere  long  the  serious  and  re- 
sponsible work  of  revision  will  actually  be  taken  in  hand. 
We  are  the  more  confirmed  in  this  view  when  we  take  fairly 
into  consideration,  first,  the  circumstances  under  which  the 
subject  has  been  brought  forward,  and,  secondly,  the  partial- 
ly forgotten  fact  that  we  are  now  only  resuming  a  discussion 
which  seriously  occupied  j)ublic  attention  twelve  or  thirteen 
years  ago,  and  which  was  only  then  suspended  owing  to  a 
sort  of  general  feeling  that  we  had  hardly  at  that  time  the 
men  or  the  materials  forthcoming  for  an  immediate  com- 
mencement of  the  work.  There  was,  however,  a  sort  of  tacit 
agreement  that,  whenever  in  God's  providence  a  fresh  call 
should  seem  to  be  addressed  to  us,  that  call  should  be  hum- 
bly and  reverently  attended  to,  and  the  discussion  resumed.f 
That  call  has  certainly  been  made,  and  the  time,  as  many  rea- 
sons would  seem  to  suggest,  is  not  only  ripe,  but  convenient 
for  a  further  consideration  of  the  question,  and  even  for  the 
commencement  of  the  important  work.  Let  us  shortly  con- 
sider both  the  circumstances  of  the  present  call,  and  the  gen- 
eral aspects  of  the  former  discussion  of  the  subject,  as  far  as 
they  may  throw  any  light  upon  our  present  jDOsition  and  our 
hopes  of  further  advance. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  the 

*  A  leading  article  of  some  importance  will  be  found  in  the  Times  for  Feb. 
18.  Various  letters  have  also  appeared  in  the  same  paper,  some  of  consider- 
able ability  and  cogency  of  argument — e.g. ,  on  Feb.  26,  by  Dr.  Scott,  and  by 
a  "Hertfordshire  Incumbent"  on  Feb.  21  and  March  10,  and  by  "  Anglica- 
nus"  on  March  9.  The  views  of  Dissenters  are  well  expressed  in  an  article 
in  The  Freeman  for  Feb.  18,  p.  133,  and  certainly  deserve  attention. 

t  No  better  instance  can  be  given  of  the  prevalence  of  this  feeling  at  the 
time  than  the  general  design  and  expressions  of  the  revision  of  St.  John's 
Gospel  and  several  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles  by  Five  Clergymen,  the  first  edition 
of  the  first  part  of  which  appeared  in  1857.  The  writers  state  clearly  in  their 
introductory  preface  that  they  were  doing  their  present  work  more  by  way  of 
giving  a  sample  of  the  manner  in  which  they  believed  revision  ought  to  be 
performed,  than  of  preparing  themselves  formally  to  undertake  the  great 
work.    See  Pre/ace  to  Revised  Translation  of  St.  John,  p.  ii.  seq. 


INTRODUCTIOK  13 

call  to  reconsider  the  subject  has  been  made  from  a  very  un- 
expected quarter.  No  one,  except  those  who  very  closely 
observe  the  directions  and  librations  of  modern  religious 
thought,  could  have  expected  that  a  resolution,  such  as  we 
have  already  referred  to,  would  have  been  proposed  in  the 
Convocation  of  the  Province  of  Canterbury,  and,  when  pro- 
posed, so  readily  and  even  joyfully  accepted.*  It  might  have 
been  said  d  2^i''iori  that  the  way  in  which  the  question  had. 
been  disposed  of  thirteen  years  ago  supplied  but  little  hope 
that  it  would  have  received  better  treatment  at  the  present 
time.  As  the  contrast  is  instructive,  we  may  devote  a  few 
sentences  to  a  short  notice  of  what  took  place  in  Convocation 
in  reference  to  the  subject  of  revision  when  the  question  was 
last  formally  brought  forward. 

On  February  1, 1856,  notice  was  given  by  Canon  Selwyn 
Earlier  proceed-  that  a  petition  would  be  proposed  to  the  Upper 

ings  in  Convo-  /,/-(  .  • 

cation,  House  of  Convocation  requesting  them  to  take 

into  consideration  an  address  to  the  crown,  praying  her  maj- 
esty to  appoint  a  commission  for  receiving  and  suggesting 
amendments  in  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Scriptures. 
The  notice,  it  must  be  confessed,  was  rather  wide  and  ambi- 
tious,f  and,  not  improbably,  found  but  moderate  favor  at  that 

*  The  manner  in  which  the  message  from  the  Upper  House  directing  the 
appointment  of  a  joint  committee  was  received  by  the  Lower  House  may  he 
regarded  as  very  distinctly  showing  how  much,  in  the  thirteen  or  fourteen  si- 
lent years  that  have  elapsed  since  the  subject  was  last  discussed,  the  whole 
question  has  ripened  in  the  general  minds  of  Churchmen.  See  the  Guardian 
forFeb.  16,  p.l98. 

t  The  exact  terms  of  the  notice  of  motion  were  as  follows : 

"To  propose  a  petition  to  the  Upper  House  requesting  his  grace  and  their 
lordships  to  take  into  their  consideration  the  subject  of  an  address  to  the 
crown,  praying  that  her  most  gracious  majesty  may  be  pleased  to  appoint  a 
body  of  learned  men  well  skilled  in  the  original  languages  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures— 

"To  consider  such  amendments  of  the  Authorized  Version  as  have  been 
already  proposed,  and  to  receive  suggestions  from  all  persons  who  may  be 
willing  to  oflFer  them. 

"To  communicate  with  foreign  scholars  on  difficult  passages  when  it  may 
be  deemed  advisable. 


1 4       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  TEE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

time  among  the  members  of  Convocation.  It  had  attracted, 
however,  some  attention,  and  in  the  July  of  the  same  year 
was  alluded  to  by  Mr,  Hey  wood  in  his  speech  on  this  subject 
in  the  House  of  Commons.*  In  the  February  of  the  follow- 
ino-  year  it  reappeared,  but  in  a  more  modest  and  practical 
form.f  The  original  motion  was  withdraw^n,  and  the  request 
limited  to  the  appointment  of  a  joint  committee  of  both 
houses,  which  was  to  be  empowered  to  deliberate  on  the  im- 
provement of  the  Authoriz^ed  Version,  and  to  publish  the  re- 
sults of  their  inquiry.  But  even  this  proposal,  moderate  as 
it  was,  failed  to  secure  general  assent  even  on  the  part  of 
those  whose  knowledge  of  sacred  criticism  and  exegesis  might 
have  been  supposed  likely  to  predispose  them  to  a  favorable 
consideration  of  the  movement.  Though  the  subject  had 
been  abundantly  discussed  in  the  leading  periodical  literature 
of  the  day,J  and  could  in  no  way  be  considered  as  new  either 

"  To  examine  the  marginal  readings  which  appear  to  have  been  introduced 
into  some  editions  since  the  year  1611. 

"  To  point  out  such  words  and  phrases  as  have  either  changed  their  mean- 
ing or  become  obsolete  in  the  lapse  of  time  ;  and 

"  To  report  from  time  to  time  the  progress  of  their  work,  and  the  amend- 
ments which  they  may  be  prepared  to  recommend."  See  Journal  of  Convo- 
cation for  1856,  vol.  ii.,  p.  92. 

The  subject  of  the  marginal  readings  referred  to  in  the  fourth  clause  waS 
noticed,  but  very  briefly,  three  years  later  in  the  Upper  House.  See  Chron- 
icle of  Convocation  for  1859,  p.  251  seq. 

*  On  July  22, 1856,  Mr.  Heywood  moved  an  address  praying  the  crown  to 
issue  a  royal  commission  (1)  to  consider  amendments  that  had  been  proposed 
in  our  present  version ;  (2)  to  receive  suggestions  from  those  willing  to  offer 
them ;  (3)  to  point  out  errors  and  obsolete  words,  and  to  report  accordingly. 
The  motion  was  opposed  by  Sir  George  Grey  and  withdrawn.  See  Hansard's 
Debates  (3d  Series),  vol.  cxliii.,  p.  122. 

t  The  amended  proposal  was  as  follows  : 

"  To  request  the  Upper  House  to  take  into  consideration  the  appointment 
of  a  joint  committee  of  both  houses  to  deliberate  upon  the  best  means  of  bring- 
ing under  review  the  suggestions  made  during  the  two  centuries  and  a  half 
for  the  still  further  improvement  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, and  of  publishing  the  results  of  the  inquiry."  See  Journal  of  Convoca- 
tion for  1856,  vol.  ii.,  p.  362. 

t  Of  the  many  articles  that  appeared  at  the  period  referred  to,  or  shortly 
before  it,  we  may  specify  those  which  deserved,  and  received,  considerable  at- 
tention, and  certainly  produced  some  effect  at  the  time,  viz.,  Edinburg  Re- 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

to  the  Church  or  the  country,  still  it  was  more  than  the  con- 
servatism of  the  House  was  then  able  to  accept.  An  amend- 
ment was  placed  on  the  notice-board  by  Canon  Wordsworth,* 
which  still  further  limited  the  proposal  by  the  provision  that 
alterations  that  might  be  recommended  were  not  to  appear 
in  the  text,  but  only  in  the  margin.  The  coup  de  grace  was 
given  by  Archdeacon  Denison,  who  added  a  further  amend- 
ment to  the  effect  that  it  was  not  desirable  to  give  any  en- 
couragement to  any  alterations  whatever,  whether  in  the  text 
or  in  the  margin.f  The  subject  then  appears  to  have  dropped 
through. 

When  we  contrast  this  treatment  of  the  question  with  that 
which  it  has  lately  received,  we  can  not  help  feeling  surprised 
at  the  striking  change  of  sentiment.  On  the  present  occa- 
sion not  only  has  the  proposal  of  revision  been  favorably  en- 
tertained by  the  Southern  Convocation,  but  even  reintro- 
duced into  that  conservative  body,  and,  when  thus  reintro- 
duced, warmly  welcomed ;  nay,  more,  the  original  proposal 
of  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  was  at  once  amplified.|    Our 

view  for  October,  1855,  vol.  cii.,  p.  4 J9  seq.  ;  Christian  Remembrancer  for 
Dec,  185G,  vol. xxxii.,  p.  451  seq.  ;  Westminster  Review  for  Jan.,  1857,  vol. 
xi.,  p.  134.  In  the  interval  between  that  period  and  the  present  time  the  ar- 
ticles have  been  very  few ;  we  may,  however,  specify  Edinburg  Review  for 
Jan.,  1865,  p.  104  seq.,  in  which  the  subject  is  discussed  in  an  easy  and  read- 
able article,  apparently  by  a  writer  of  known  reputation.  The  leading  treat- 
ises that  appeared  about  the  time  refeiTed  to  will  be  found  noticed  in  an  ex- 
cellent article  by  Professor  Plumptre  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  vol. 
iii.,p.  1G80. 

*  The  amendment  was  as  follo\vs  : 

' '  That  as  to  the  question  which  has  been  brought  under  the  notice  of  this 
House  concerning  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  it  is  not 
desirable  to  countenance  any  efforts  to  make  changes  in  the  text  of  the  same, 
but  that  any  alterations  or  additions  which  it  may  be  deemed  expedient  by 
competent  authority  to  be  adopted,  should  be  confined  to  the  margin,  and  not 
be  introduced  into  the  text."     See  Journal  of  Convocation,  vol.  ii.,  p.  363. 

t  The  exact  terms  of  this  concluding  amendment  were : 

"That  it  is  not  expedient  that  this  House  give  any  encouragement  to  any 
alteration  or  modification  of  the  Authorized  Version,  whether  by  way  of  in- 
sertion in  the  text,  marginal  note,  or  otherwise. "  See  Journal  of  Convoca- 
tion, vol.  ii.,  p.  363. 

J  The  original  proposal  of  the  Bishop  of  Winchester,  as  seconded  by  the 


16        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

resolution,  as  first  brought  before  the  House,  was  limited  to 
the  New  Testament.  It  was  immediately  extended  to  the 
Old  Testament  with  an  amount  of  assent  that  could  never 
have  been  expected,  and  never  could  have  been  given  if  the 
real  necessity  for  revision  had  not  been  very  sensibly  felt  by 
all  present.  It  may  indeed  be  doubted  whether  this  enlarge- 
ment of  the  proposal  was  in  itself  wholly  desirable.  It  may 
be  very  reasonably  urged  that  it  would  have  seemed  at  first 
sight  more  prudent  to  commence  with  a  portion  of  the  Holy 
Scripture,  with  the  criticism  and  interpretation  of  which  we 
are  certainly  more  familiar  than  with  that  of  the  remaining 
part.*  Be  this,  however,  as  it  may,  the  general  feeling  of  the 
Southern  Convocation  has  been  very  clearly  expressed,  and 
that,  too,  in  a  manner  and  with  a  promptitude  that  could 
hardly  have  been  expected,  except  by  those  who  closely 
watch  the  movements  of  jjublic  opinion.  Such  a  fact  is  very 
significant,  and  seems  certainly  to  point  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  is  in  the  minds  of  those  fully  qualified  to  form  an 
opinion,  and  not  likely  to  favor  innovations,  a  growing  con- 
viction that  the  time  has  at  length  arrived,  and  that  meas- 
ures ere  long  must  be  taken  for  such  a  revision  as  will  brins: 
our  venerable  version  more  closely  into  harmony  with  the  in- 
spired Original. f 

The  general  aspects  of  the  former  discussion  of  the  subject. 
Former  discus-    thirteen  years  ago,  seem  also  to  point  in  the 

eions  of  the  sub-  -,.  .  Tn  rr-  r-  ■    • 

ject.  same  dn-ection.     The  efforts  of  revision  at  that 

Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol,  only  extended  to  the  New  Testament,  but 
was  at  once  extended  to  the  Old  Testament  by  the  Bishop  of  Llandaff  and 
others.  See  Guardian  for  Feb.  IG,  p.  193  seq.  The  extension  was  agreed  to 
unanimously. 

*  There  is,  we  are  afraid,  only  too  much  truth  in  the  remark  of  Professor 
Plumptre,  that  relatively  Hebrew  was  more  studied  in  the  early  part  of  the 
17th  century  than  it  is  now.    See  Smith's  Diet,  of  theBible,\o\.  iii.,  p.  1682. 

t  Some  very  sensible  remarks  on  the  subject  of  the  revision  will  be  found 
in  the  Quarterly  Review  for  April,  1870,  vol.  cxxviii.,  p.  129  seq.  The  arti- 
cle, which  is  of  considerable  interest,  did  not  appear  till  the  text  of  the  great- 
er part  of  the  present  volume  had  been  written.  Any  similarities  of  opinion 
or  sentiment  may  therefore  be  considered  as  due  to  the  independent  though 
coincident  convictions  of  two  separate  writers. 


INTRODUCTIOK  17 

time,  as  several  of  us  who  then  took  part  in  the  work  prob- 
ably well  remember,  were  almost  confessedly  preparatory  and 
tentative.  It  was  very  generally  felt  at  the  time  that  the 
question  was  not  ripe  for  solution,  and  that,  though  it  was 
right  and  proper  to  do  our  best  in  advancing  the  cause  of  re- 
vision, yet  that  time  must  elapse  before  the  work  could  be 
formally  and  authoritatively  undertaken.  Even  those  who 
entered  with  some  ardor  into  the  movement,  and  were  at 
first  unwilling  to  believe  that  it  would  ever  cease  till  a  re- 
vised version  was  in  the  hands  of  every  earnest  Englishman, 
soon  showed  a  consciousness  that  there  must  be  a  time  for 
maturation,  and  that  first  impulses  must  be  content  simjDly 
to  prepare  the  way,  and  even  by  failure  to  demonstrate  how 
and  under  what  limitations  the  work  itself  was  finally  to  be 
accomplished.*  We  all  saw,  more  or  less  clearly,  that  the 
movement  in  which  we  were  then  engaged  would,  by  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  become  suspended,  that  there  would  be  a 
pause,  a  time  for  reconsideration  of  the  work  actually  done, 
and  then,  after  this  pause,  that  the  movement  would  recom- 
mence, and  go  on  uninterruptedly  to  the  end.  This  is  com- 
monly the  history  of  all  great  undertakings,  and  will,  in  all 
probability,  be  the  history  of  the  future  revision  of  the  Au- 
thorized Version. 

A  very  little  consideration  will  show  that  such  a  forecast 
was  natural  and  reasonable.  The  movement  at  that  time 
was  essentially  a  scholars'  movement.  The  works  of  Dean 
Alford,  Archbishop  Trench,  and  others,  had  awakened  a  vivid 

*  It  may  be  noticed  that  even  after  the  favorable  reception  of  the  Eeviscd 
Version  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  the  five  clergymen  who  took  part  in  it  still 
speak  of  their  Avork  as  fortunate  if  it  has  "  succeeded  in  striking  the  key-note 
upon  which  any  authoritative  Revision  of  the  English  Bible,  hereafter  to  be 
made,  is  to  be  based."  Pre/,  to  Revised  Version  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
p.  iv.  The  impression  on  our  minds  was  that  we  were  doing  work  for  the 
future,  not  for  the  then  present  time.  This  feeling  had  a  very  good  effect 
upon  us.  We  did  our  work  slowly,  and  without  any  reference  to  current  ex- 
pectations, or  any  desire  to  catch  passing  opportunities.  When  the  interest 
in  the  subject  died  out,  which  it  did  a  few  years  ago,  we  considered  it  a  sign 
that  for  a  season,  at  any  rate,  our  work  was  done. 


1 8       ELLICOTT  ON  EEVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

interest  in  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament,  but  it 
had  not  yet  extended  far  beyond  the  circle  of  professed  schol- 
ars. Within  the  circle  there  was  soon  shown  a  strong  and 
natural  desire  to  give  a  useful  turn  to  the  newly  acquired 
knowledge,  and  to  put  at  the  disposal  of  the  general  reader 
the  results  of  recent  exegetical  experience ;  and  such  general 
aid  was  commonly  very  thankfully  received.  But  there  was 
never  much  sympathy  with  these  efforts  whenever  they  took 
the  particular  form  of  revisions  of  the  Authorized  Version. 
Churchmen  at  that  time  were  very  tolerant  of  critical  and 
grammatical  comments,  and  even  of  corrections  of  the  En- 
glish Bible  as  long  as  they  were  confined  to  the  notes  or  the 
margin ;  but  whenever  they  took  their  place  in  the  text  there 
were  but  few  general  readers  who  then  viewed  them  with 
any  great  amount  of  favor.  And  they  were  right.  The  ver- 
sions and  specimens  of  versions  that  appeared  at  the  time  we 
are  alluding  to,  and  subsequently,  were  sufiiciently  accurate 
and  precise,  but  they  wanted  tone  and  rhythm.  They  were 
translations  through  which  the  original  Greek  often  showed 
itself  far  too  distinctly ;  they  were  not  idiomatic  versions ; 
they  were  suited,  and  even  in  some  cases  specially  designed, 
for  the  closet  ;'^  but  with  general  readers  they  never  were 
and  never  could  have  been  popular. 

The  best  of  these  revised  versions  was  one  that  received 
The  Five  cier-  ^^  ^hc  time  the  Valuable  approval  of  Archbish- 
gymen  revision.   ^^  Trench,f  and  of  the  distinguished  American 

*  Reference  may,  perhaps  not  improperly,  be  made  to  the  writer's  Pref.  to 
Commentary  to  the  Pastoral  Epp.,  p.  xiii.  seq.,  the  words  of  which  have  been 
quoted  from  time  to  time.  They  were  written  about  the  period  now  alluded 
to,  and  show,  it  is  believed,  fairly,  what  the  general  mind  of  scholars  was 
at  that  time.  Of  the  small  bands  of  scholars  there  referred  to,  one  at  the 
time  was  actually  working,  to  the  labors  of  which  reference  is  made  in  the 
text. 

t  The  friendly  remarks  of  Archbishop  Trench  will  be  found  in  the  first 
chapter  of  his  useful  work  On  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  are  as  follows :  "  It  is  an  eminent  merit  in  the  Revision  of  the  Authorized 
Version  by  Five  Clergymen that  they  have  not  merely  urged  by  pre- 
cept, but  shown  by  proof,  that  it  is  possible  to  revise  our  version,  and  at  the 


INTRODUCTION.  I9 

writer,  Mr.  Marsh,*  and  which  even  now  has  not  quite  passed 
out  of  sight.  As  it  was  produced  on  principles  which  appear 
to  be  trustworthy,  and  as  it  serves  to  indicate  the  path  that 
must  be  followed  by  any  revisers  who  would  construct  a  joo^> 
ular  version^  we  may  pause  briefly  to  notice  its  leading  char- 
acteristics. It  consisted  of  a  revision  of  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion of  St.  John's  Gospel,  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  the 
two  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  by  Five  Clergymen,  and  of 
the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  and  Co- 
lossians,  by  Four  Clergymen  ;  in  all,  four  separate  volumes, 
to  each  of  which  a  few  pages  of  preface  are  prefixed,  contain- 
ing a  statement  of  the  principles  mainly  followed,  and  an 
enumeration  of  passages  in  which  special  difficulties  had  been 
met  with,  and  rules  of  revision  more  than  usually  tested.  Of 
the  five  revisers,  two  at  the  outset  of  the  work  were  strongly 
in  favor  of  an  authoritative  revision  of  the  whole  Testament, 
but  ere  the  work  came  to  its  conclusion  (it  extended  over 
more  than  two  years),  all,  I  believe,  had  come  honestly  and 
impartially  to  these  two  conclusions :  First,  that  an  authori- 
tative revision  could  not  wisely  be  attempted  at  that  time  ; 
secondly,  that  if  it  afterward  were  undertaken,  it  must  be  on 
the  principles  which  they  themselves  had  worked  out  and 

same  time  to  preserve  unimpaired  the  character  of  the  English  in  which  it  is 
comppsed.  Nor  is  it  only  on  this  account  that  we  may  accept  this  work  as 
by  far  the  most  hopeful  contribution  which  we  have  yet  had  to  the  solution 
of  a  great  and  difficult  problem,  but  also  as  showing  that  where  reverent  hands 
touch  that  building,  which  some  would  have  wholly  pulled  down,  that  it  might 
be  wholly  built  up  again,  these  find  only  the  need  of  here  and  there  replacing 
a  stone  which  had  been  incautiously  built  in  the  wall,  or  which,  trustworthy 
material  once,  has  now  yielded  to  the  lapse  and  injuiy  of  time,  while  they 
leave  the  building  itself,  in  its  main  features  and  frame-work,  untouched"  (p.  - 
25,  ed.  1).  These  words,  from  one  who  is  so  well  qualified  to  speak  both  on 
the  English  and  on  the  scholarly  questions  connected  with  the  subject,  may 
perhaps  be  considered  to  justify  the  reference  in  the  text  to  the  experiences 
derived  during  the  progress  of  the  work  alluded  to. 

*  The  author  refeired  to,  although  deprecating  a  new  translation,  and  even 
a  re^•ision,  of  the  Authorized  Version,  speaks  of  the  work  of  the  Five  Clergy- 
men as  "  by  fiir  the  most  judicious  modern  recension  known  to  him."  See 
his  first  Series  oi Lectures  on  the  English  Language,  No.  xxviii.,  p.  633. 


20       ELLICOTT  ON  BEVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

followed,  and  which  more  than  two  years  of  hard  united  vfork 
had  proved  to  be  trustworthy. 

These  principles  will  be  occasionally  alluded  to  in  detail 
Principles  of  ''^^  ^^^  following  pages.  For  the  present  it  may 
this  revision.  -^^  enough  to  noticc  that  they  M-ere,  first,  a  lim- 
itation of  the  vocabulary  of  translation  to  that  of  the  Author- 
ized Version  of  both  Testaments  ;*  secondly,  a  careful  atten- 
tion, and,  as  far  as  possible,  adherence  to  the  princii^les  stated 
and  followed  by  the  revisers  of  1611 ;  thirdl}^  extreme  watch- 
fulness in  reference  to  the  two  weaker  portions  of  the  Au- 
thorized Version,  the  translation  of  the  particles  and  of  the 
tenses  ;f  fourthly,  and  combined  with  this,  a  constant  recog- 
nition in  such  cases  of  the  frequently  modifying  power  of  the 
context,  and  of  the  fact  that  the  tenses,  especially  the  past 
tenses,  in  Greek  and  English,  are  not  co-extensive ;  fifthly,  a 
sensitiveness  to  the  noble  rhythm  and  cadence  of  the  Author- 
ized Version ;  and,  lastly,  a  continual  remembrance  that  a 
truly  popular  translation  must  always  stand  the  test  of  being 
heard  as  icell  as  read^  and  must  commend  itself  not  only  to 
the  cultivated  scholar,  but  to  the  simple  hearer. 

Such  were  the  principles  of  this  particular  revision,];  and 

*  The  Five  Eevisers  distinctly  state  that  they  kept  the  earlier  English  ver- 
sions, from  WiclifFe  downward,  before  them,  and  "  constantly  rejected  words 
which  presented  themselves  as  the  most  exact  equivalents  to  the  words  of  the 
Greek  because  they  wanted  the  Biblical  garb  and  sound  which  we  were  anx- 
ious to  presen-e."     See  Preface  to  Revised  Version  of  St.  John,  p.  viii. 

t  The  principles  adopted  in  the  translation  of  some  of  the  particles  are 
stated  in  the  Preface  above  referred  to  (see  p.  x.).  In  respect  of  the  tenses, 
it  is  stated  that  the  "  exact  accuracy  of  literal  rendering  which  rigid  scholar- 
ship might  seem  to  require"  is  not  always  maintained  (p.  xi.).  It  may  be 
now  said,  however,  that  this  accuracy  was  maintained  even  too  far,  especially 
in  the  case  of  the  aorist  and  perfect.  Such,  at  least,  is  the  judgment  of  Marsh, 
who  seems  inclined  to  draw  the  inference  from  it  that  the  tenses  "are  com- 
ing to  have  in  England  a  force  which  they  have  not  now  in  America."  See 
Lectures  on  the  English  Language,  No.  xxviii.,  p.  G33.  Several  changes,  how- 
ever, were  made  in  the  second  edition. 

X  A  full  account  will  be  found  in  the  Preface  to  the  Revised  Translation  of 
St.  John.  It  is  not  violating  confidence  to  say  that  it  was  principally  the 
composition  of  the  agreeable  pen  of  the  present  Bishop  of  Salisbury,  and  that 
it  will  be  found  to  contain  a  good  account  of  the  principles  followed,  and  cer- 
tainly deserves  penisal. 


IXTR  OB  UCTIOX.  2 1 

such,  it  may  be  said,  must  be  the  principles  of  any  revision 
that  would  aspire  to  be  popular  and  successful.  But  let  it 
not  be  supposed  that  these  principles  were  all  recognized  at 
once,  and  all  systematically  acted  on  from  the  first.  They 
were  not  thought  out,  but  felt  out  and  worked  out.  They 
resulted  from  faithful  individual  labor  combined  with  fre- 
quent conference  and  united  efforts  round  a  common  table  j 
they  resulted  also  from  the  great  teaching  of  experience,  and 
from  the  continual  testing,  and,  it  may  be  added,  the  frequent 
breaking  down  of  rigorous  canons  of  translation  on  which  it 
might  have  seemed  a  'priori  that  reliance  could  be  placed. 
There  are,  indeed,  few  canons  in  reference  to  revision  of  more 
jjractical  importance  than  those  which  are  embodied  in  the 
foregoing  sentence,  viz.,  (1.)  That  there  must  he  frequent  con- 
ference and  the  combined  action  of  several  minds,  and  (2.) 
That  exj^erience  must  be  relied  on  as  the  only  idtimately  suc- 
cessfid  teacher  in  the  difficult  icorh.  Few  are  willing  at  first 
to  accept  these  canons,  but  all  scholars  of  candid  minds  and 
of  proper  humility  will  be  found  in  the  sequel  to  acknowledge 
their  validity.  As  they  are  of  real  importance,  let  us  devote 
to  each  of  them  a  few  sentences  of  comment  and  elucidation. 
In  reference  to  the  first  pf  these  canons,  we  may  observe 
1st  Canon:  Sev-  that  it  servcs  to  remind  us  how  it  is  that  so 

eral  miails  nee-  „  .   .  „     ,         »       i       •       t  tx       • 

eseary.  vcry  lew  revisions  01  the  Authorized  Version 

have  been  even  endurable,  when  contrasted  with  that  which 
they  were  designed  to  amend.  Nearly  all  our  revised  ver- 
sions have  been  produced  by  individual  scholars,  and,  faith- 
ful to  their  origin,  they  have  clearly  enough  disclosed  the 
bias  and  individuality  of  the  single  mind  and  the  single 
reviser.  They  have  been  one-sided  and  not  many-sided. 
They  have  commonly  been,  if  accurate,  too  inflexible  ;  if  free, 
too  loose  and  paraphrastic.  The  happy  elasticity  of  diction, 
and  the  thoroughly  idiomatic  tone  of  our  English  version — 
that  which,  in  fact,  so  commends  it  to  the  heart  as  well  as 
the  head  of  the  earnest  reader,  is  just  that  which  will  be. 
found  wantinir  in  all  recent  revisions.     And  it  would  be  un- 


22        ELLICOTT  OX  REVISIOX  OF  THE  XEW  TESTAJtIEXT. 

reasonable  to  expect  that  it  could  be  otherwise.  The  elas- 
ticity to  which  we  have  alluded  is  due  in  a  great  measure  to 
the  united  02)eration  of  several  minds,  and  to  the  continued 
modifications  Avhich  the  aspects  of  a  passage  as  presented  to 
the  different  minds  of  different  revisers  would  be  certain  to 
introduce.  The  individual  adheres,  often  far  too  pertina- 
ciously in  detail,  to  his  principles  of  translation.  His  very 
precision  often  makes  him  very  insufficiently  sensitive  to  the 
exegetical  current  of  the  passage,  and  hence  often  to  that 
modification  which  the  context  constantly  tends  to  introduce 
in  the  translation,  especially  of  tenses  and  particles.  The 
requisite  correction  is  supplied  by  another  mind  estimating 
differently  the  general  current  of  the  passage,  and  the  ulti- 
mately chosen  translation  often  accurately  enough  indicates, 
not  so  much  the  result  of  compromise,  as  the  final  decision  of 
two  or  more  minds  after  having  so  acted  and  reacted  upon 
each  other  that  a  common  translation  could  be  agreed  upon. 
For  instance,  an  individual  translator  or  reviser  might  feel 
it  always,  so  to  speak,  such  a  grammatical  duty  to  mark  in 
translation  the  difference  (in  the  same  author)  between  two 
particles — let  us  say  dXXa  and  li,  that  his  very  desire  to  ad- 
here scrupulously  to  his  rule  might  impede  his  perception  of 
some  shade  of  meaning  in  the  passage  that  tended  to  modify 
the  rule.  Suppose,  to  carry  on  this  particular  instance,  that 
he  resolved  that  he  Avould  give  aWa  in  translation  its  inher- 
ently stronger  adversative  force  of  "howbeit"  or  "notwith- 
standing," and  so  mark  its  distinction  from  the  "but"  or 
"yet"  of  the  lighter  opposition  of  the  U,  and  suppose  further 
that  he  was  a  thoroughly  good  scholar,  and  perfectly  familiar 
with  the  fact  that  if  a  definitely  expressed  negative  preceded 
the  dWci  in  the  contrasted  clause,  then  his  rule  would  have 
to  undergo  modification.*     Suppose  all  this — and  it  will  not 

*  For  some  remarks  on  this  principle,  which  is,  in  fact,  strictly  analogous 
to  the  nicht — sondern  of  the  German,  see  Donaldson,  New  Cratylus,  §  201, 
p.  376.  In  some  passages  of  the  New  Testament  this  principle  is  of  very 
great  importance.  For  example,  in  the  momentous  passage,  Phil.  ii. ,  6,  ovx 
apiraynov  riyrjaaTO  to  tlvai  'ha  Q«f,  aXKa  iavrbv  iKtvwaev,  much  in  regard  of 


INTRODUCTION.  23 

be  difficult  to  imagine  that  there  might  be  many  a  passage 
in  -which  there  might  be  found  a  latent  negative,  and  so  a 
modifying  element  in  the  context,  which  our  imaginary  accu- 
rate scholar  with  his  mind  on  his  rule  might  not  be  sensitive 
enough  to  perceive."  Put  other  minds  iu  contact  with  his ; 
the  result  might  easily  be  that  discussion  would  bring  out 
the  true  logical  and  exegetical  aspects  of  the  passage,  that 
the  latent  negative  in  the  preceding  clause  would  be  proper- 
ly recognized,  and  the  translation  of  the  aXka  modified  ac- 
cordingly. Such  examples  of  the  importance  of  having  sev- 
eral minds  in  combination  in  such  a  delicate  work  as  that  of 
revising  our  idiomatic  Authorized  Version  could  be  multi- 
plied indefinitely. 

The   second  canon,  that  experience  will  prove  the  best 
2d  Canon:  Ex-  tcachcr  in  such  a  work  as  revision,  though  not 

t)GriGuc6  the  •  ■• 

best  guide.  quite  SO  obvious  as  the  canon  which  we  have 
just  illustrated,  will  in  practice  be  found  quite  as  certainly 
true.  It  might  be  thought  that  competent  translators  and 
revisers  might  agree  on  their  principles  beforehand,  and  go 
regularly  forward  without  much  risk  of  lapsing  from  uni- 
formity, or  of  so  changing  a  standard  that  it  would  be  con- 
tinually necessary  to  go  over  the  back-work  with  the  light 
of  present  knowledge  and  observation.  It  certainly  might 
be  thought  so,  but  experience  will  always  be  found  to  re- 
verse the  expectation.  General  rules  of  course  there  must 
be,  but  in  the  application  of  them  the  tentative  element  must 
greatly  predominate.  The  individual  will  find  it  so,  and  still 
more  the  combined  body.  In  fact,  this  is  the  sort  of  set-off 
against  the  advantage  of  the  co-operation  of  several  minds 
specified  above — the  tendency  of  an  association  to  change 

translation  turns  upon  the  due  recognition  of  the  fact  that  we  have  two  strict- 
ly contrasted  clauses,  as  indicated  by  parity  of  tenses  (r'lyfjaaTo — tKkvwaev) 
and  by  the  presence  of  this  oi<k — ciXXa.  The  translation,  then,  of  the  Author- 
ized Version,  enhanced  as  it  is  by  the  punctuation  ("thought  it  not  robbery 
to  be  equal  with  God ;  but  made  himself  of  no  reputation")  as  faihng  to  pre- 
ser\'e  and  bring  out  this  contrast  of  clauses,  may  fairly  be  considered  as  open 
to  question.     See  Commentary  in  loc.   ■ 


24       ELLICOTT  OX  BEVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

gradually  a  standard  being  always  much  more  pi'onounced 
than  that  of  the  individual. 

A  moment's  consideration  will  show  the  truth  of  this  re- 
mark, at  any  rate  in  such  a  special  work  as  that  of  revision. 
What,  for  instance,  is  the  very  condition  of  revision  ?  Why, 
that  errors,  and  perhaps  also  inaccuracies  and  archaisms 
should  be  removed.  Good ;  but,  then,  to  take  even  the  most 
favorable  case,  the  removal  of  simple  and  clear  errors,  is  it 
not  perfectly  certain  that  even  if  the  definition  of  what  w' as 
to  be  considered  an  error  was  tolerably  agreed  on  at  first,  it 
would  be  considerably  modified  as  the  work  went  on,  so  that, 
if  there  was  to  be  any  thing  like  a  uniform  principle  in  the 
work,  constant  retrospect  and  reconsideration  would  be  nec- 
essary? We  venture  very  confidently  to  maintain  that  if 
half  a  dozen  scholars  sat  down  to  revise  the  present  version 
of  one  of  the  Gospels,  and  agreed  beforehand,  after  having 
settled  the  distinction  between  errors  and  inaccuracies,  only 
to  touch  the  former  and  not  the  latter,  it  would  be  found,  be- 
fore they  had  gone  half  through  their  work,  that  they  had 
taken  in  the  whole  fringe  of  cases  that  lies  between  errors 
and  inaccuracies,  and  had  even  gone  far  into  the  domain  of 
the  latter.  In  revision,  as  in  many  other  things,  there  is  a 
continually  accelerative  and  intensifying  tendency  which  in- 
creased habitude  in  the  work  never  fails  to  develop,  but 
which  certainly  must  be  closely  watched  and  constantly  cor- 
rected. The  best,  and,  indeed,  the  only  way  to  keep  this 
tendency  under  is  to  proceed  tentatively,  to  feel  out  princi- 
j)les  of  revision  rather  than  to  attempt  definitely  to  lay  them 
down  beforehand,  and  then,  from  time  to  time,  as  the  princi- 
ples are  felt  out,  to  go  back  over  the  work  already  done.  It 
is  only  thus,  it  is  only  by  this  tentative  and  retrospective 
mode  of  proceeding,  this  continual  reference  to  experience, 
that  the  subtle  and  delicate  process  of  revision  can  be  suc- 
cessfully cai'ried  out. 

We  gave  an  illustration  of  the  first  canon ;  we  may  per- 
haps, not  unsuitably,  give  one  of  the  second.     Suppose  it 


INTRODUCTION.  25 

was  agreed  beforehand  that  great  care  should  be  given,  to 
Illustration  of  distinguish,  where  possible,  between  the  tenses — 
the  Canon.  ^^^^  f^j,  examjDle,  between  the  aorist  and  the  per- 
fect. Now  it  may  be  confidently  asserted  that  nothing  but 
experience  will  adequately  prescribe  in  cases  of  this  kind 
when  the  "  have"  should  be  introduced  in  the  translation  of 
the  aorist  and  when  the  simple  past  tense  should  be  adopted. 
Whatever  our  rules  might  have  been  beforehand,  they  would 
break  down  in  such  a  chapter,  for  example,  as  John  xvii., 
and  they  would  be  sorely  tested  in  those  many  cases  in 
which,  in  the  original  Greek,  particles  of  present  time  are 
found  in  the  same  clauses,  and  in  combination  with  aorists.* 
And  what  is  true  of  the  aorist  is  almost  equally  true  of  the 
perfect.  We  might,  for  instance,  begin  our  work  by  the  gen- 
eral agreement  that,  whatever  might  be  the  case  of  tlie  aorist, 
we  would,  at  any  rate,  press  the  translation  of  the  perfect, 
and  recognize  its  force,  and  yet,  when  we  came  to  such  a  pas- 
sage as  1  John  i.,  1,  we  should  not  be  perfectly  clear  that  the 
lines  of  demarkation  between  aorist  and  perfect  were  always 
very  rigidly  drawn.  We  should  have  in  the  sequel  to  fall 
back  on  experience. 

But  to  return  to  the  present  aspects  of  this  question. 
From  what  has  been  said,  it  does  not  seem  unreasonable  to 
Growth  of  in-    think  that  there  has  been  during  the  last  twelve 

terest  in  the  n       ,     •         •  f»  i   •    .  .    • 

subject  years  a  gradual  ripening  oi  general  interest  in 

the  subject  of  revision.     We  have  all  had  time  to  think  well 
over  the  former  movement,  to  come  to  unbiased  opinions 

*  For  example,  Phil,  iii.,  12,  iiStj  tkaftov,  and  again  ch.  iv.,  10,  r^^;j  ■noTs 
aviQaktTf,  or  in  the  case  oivvv,  Eph.  iii.,  5,  itq  vvv  ainKa\v<pQri — in  all  which 
cases  it  would  be  simply  impossible  to  leave  out  the  auxiliary  in  English  and 
to  adopt  a  simple  aoristic  translation.  The  actual  fact  is,  that  there  is  not  a 
strict  parity  between  the  English  past  tense  and  the  Greek  aorist :  the  former 
points  back  clearly  to  past  time  and  commonly  taken  per  se;  remands  the 
thought  back  to  an  epoch  distinctly  separated  from  present  time ;  the  Greek 
aorist  specifies  posteriority  to  some  fixed  point  of  time,  but  is  simply  silent  as 
to  the  fact  whether  the  action  has  or  has  not  any  reference  to  present  time. 
See  esp.  Donaldson,  New  Cratyhs,  §  372  seq.,  and  the  useful  treatise  on  the 
force  of  this  tense  bv  Fritz,  De  Aoristi  Vi,  p.  17. 

Gg 


26        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

upon  the  principles  which  seem  likely  to  prove  most  trust- 
worthy in  the  actual  prosecution  of  the  work,  and — what  is 
especially  important — to  arrive  at  some  conclusions  as  to  the 
limits  within  which  revision  should  be  confined.  We  are  also, 
in  several  resf»ects,  better  prepared  for  the  work.  Though  it 
must  be  conceded  that  New-Testament  interpretation  has 
not,  at  any  rate  in  the  Church  of  England,  made  much  prog- 
ress during  the  last  ten  years ;  though  in  some  of  the  many 
schools  of  thought  within  the  Church  at  the  present  time 
there  is  a  retrograde  movement,  and  a  relapse  to  the  easy  la- 
bors of  mystical  commentaries  and  of  loose  exegesis ;  though 
our  religious  newspapers  often  give  us  evidence,  in  the  letters 
of  correspondents,  that  there  is  not  only  great,  but,  what  is 
worse,  confident  ignorance  on  critical  or  grammatical  ques- 
tions ;  though  much  valuable  time  has  been  wasted  on  ritu- 
alistic controversy  instead  of  being  devoted  to  serene  schol- 
arship; though  the  study  of  the  ancient  versions  has  been  al- 
most absolutely  stopped  for  the  last  twelve  or  fourteen  years, 
still,  in  spite  of  all  these  discouraging  facts,  the  assertion  may 
be  fully  sustained  that  we  are  better  prepared  for  the  work 
than  we  were  at  the  close  of  the  last  movement. 

Two  or  three  reasons  may  be  alleged  for  such  an  opinion. 
Reasons  for  I"  the  first  place,  the  majority  of  those  who  are 
this  opinion.  jjjQgj.  YiVoly  to  be  Called  upon  to  take  part  in 
any  future  revision  will  have  matured  in  judgment,  and  have 
had  time  to  reconsider  the  principles  on  which  the  former  at- 
tempts had  been  based,  in  some  of  which  they  themselves 
may  have  taken  part.  Such  scholars,  who  for  the  most  jsart 
belonged  to  a  somewhat  sharply  defined  critical  and  exegeti- 
cal  school,  will  now  find  themselves  recruited  by  some  mem- 
bers of  the  more  distinctly  historical  school  of  commentators 
and  interpreters  which  has  appeared  during  the  last  ten  years. 
The  keen,  and  perhaps,  for  a  popular  revision,  unduly  rigor- 
ous scholarship  of  those  who  were  connected  with  the  first 
movement  will  be  now  found  beneficially  influenced  both  by 
the  wider  knowledge  and  experience  time  will  have  brought 


INTRODUCTION.  27 

with  it,  and  by  the  flexibility  of  the  later  systems  of  inter- 
pretations which  have  appeared  either  at  home  or  in  Ger- 
many.    The  delay  wnll  not  have  been  unprofitable. 

In  the  second  place,  some  worthy  representatives  of  sound 
Increase  of         Biblical  Scholarship  will  be  now  found  among 

learning  among      ,       ^^  /.         •  mi       i     -i  />  •  i 

Nonconformists,  the  Nonconiormists.  ihe  hali-generation  that 
has  now  elapsed  since  revision  was  last  under  consideration 
has  witnessed  the  gradual  rise  and  progress  of  sacred  exe- 
gesis in  all  the  higher  training  colleges  of  Wesleyans,  Bap- 
tists, Independents,  and  other  communities.  Scotland  also, 
in  the  person  of  Professor  Eadie,  Dr.  Brown,  and  others,  has 
shown  that  Presbyterians  have  not  been  left  behind  in  the 
general  advance.*  And  this  is  a  matter  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance. It  would  not  be  hopeful  to  undertake  such  a  truly 
national  work  as  the  revision  of  the  English  Bible,  that  Book 
of  Life  which  is  alike  dear  and  common  to  us  all,  without  the 
presence  and  co-operation  of  the  most  learned  of  our  bretliren 
of  nonconformity.!  This  was  properly  felt  and  expressed  by 
most  of  the  speakers  in  the  Upper  House  of  the  Convocation 
of  Canterbury,  and,  w'e  believe,  would  be  frankly  respond- 
ed to  by  those  we  have  alluded  to.  General  questions  may 
often  keep  us  apart ;  uncharitable  and  embittered  politicians 

*  It  is  pleasant  to  observe  the  steady  progress  that  has  been  silently  made 
in  Biblical  learning  during  the  last  twenty  years  by  Nonconformists.  The 
honored  name  of  Tregelles — one  who  has  given  the  whole  energies  of  a  life 
(alas !  now  seriously  impaired)  to  sacred  criticism — will  at  once  supply  an 
example  of  great  and  successful  labors  outside  of  the  communion  of  the 
Church  of  England.  We  may  also,  perhaps,  be  permitted  to  specify  the 
names  of  Dr.  Gotch,  of  Bristol ;  of  Dr.  Angus,  of  the  College  in  Kegent's 
Park ;  and  of  the  modest  and  singularly  able  translator  of  Winer's  Greek 
Grammar,  Professor  Moulton,  of  Richmond — all  men  whose  learning  would 
entitle  them  to  a  place  at  any  Board  of  Revision,  and  who  would  be  wel- 
comed there  by  all  Biblical  scholars  of  the  Church  of  England. 

t  In  his  excellent  treatise  on  Revision  Archbishop  Trench  alludes  to  this 
subject.  He  does  not,  however,  seem  to  contemplate  the  presence  of  Non- 
conformists at  the  actual  revising  Board,  or  as  sitting  there  on  equal  terms 
with  others ;  and  he  also  somewhat  summarily  disposes  of  the  claims  of 
Baptists.  See  Revision  of  Auth,  Version,  eh.  xi.,  p.  1-S8;  In  the  twelve 
years,  however,  that  have  elapsed  since  the  work  was  written,  my  valued 
friend  may  veiy  likely  have  modified  his  opinion.    We  all  live  and  learn. 


28        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

may  continue,  as  we  have  seen  not  long  since,  their  discred- 
itable efforts  to  sow  dissension  and  animosities,  but  in  the 
calm  region  of  Biblical  learning  such  pitiful  efforts  will  nev- 
er be  permitted  to  prevail.  The  men  that  may  hereafter  sit 
round  the  council-table  of  revision  Avill  be  proof  against  all 
such  uncharitableness  ;*  they  will  be  bound  by  the  holy  bond 
of  reverence  for  the  same  Book,  and  adoration  for  the  same 
Lord.  Those  whom  God  may  hereafter  vouchsafe  to  join  to- 
gether in  a  holy  work,  sectarian  bitterness  will  never  be  able 
to  put  asunder. 

Thirdly,  the  additions  that  by  the  providence  of  God  have 
Increase  in  our  been  made  to  the  critical  material  for  the  textu- 
ai8.  al  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  may  well, 

on  the  one  hand,  make  us  thankful  that  this  delay  has  taken 
place,  and  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  make  us  desirous  to  show 
our  thankfulness  by  now  prepai'ing  to  use  what  has  been 
thus  unexpectedly  vouchsafed.  Every  earnest  man  must  re- 
gard it  as  something  more  than  accident  that  a  manuscript 
such  as  the  Sinaitic  Manuscript,  so  venerable  and  so  perfect, 
should  have  been  discovered  just  at  a  time  when  such  a  wit- 
ness was,  in  many  important  passages,  so  especially  needed. 
Of  an  antiquity  inferior  only  to  the  great  Vatican  Manuscript, 
in  perfect  preservation,  and  without  a  missing  page,  this  ven- 
erable document  is  now  in  the  hands  of  us  all.f     Surely  it 

*  The  following  sentences  from  The  Freeman  for  February  IS  seem  to  jus- 
tify this  expectation.  The  writer  justly  obsei-\es  that  no  existing  version 
"could  be  endured  in  the  place  of  the  fine  old  English  of  our  translators— we 
must  have  a  restoration,  not  a  rebuilding  on  a  modem  plan."  He  then  adds : 
"It  must  also  be  a  catholic  translation.  Learned  men  of  all  evangelical 
churches  must  be  in^•ited  to  co-operate,  and  the  work  fuUy  and  freely  can- 
vassed before  it  is  fully  accepted."  The  next  sentence  is  specially  worthy 
of  attention:  "One  thing  we  had  almost  forgotten  to  remark  —  the  work 
must  be  done  by  the  churches,  not  by  the  government."  See  also,  as  to  Convo- 
cation, The  Times  for  May  G. 

t  The  general  reader  will  find  some  useful  remarks  on  this  manuscript,  and 
especially  on  its  relation  to  the  venerable  Codex  Vaticanus,  in  the  Christian 
Remembrancer  for  October,  1 867,  vol.  liv. ,  p.  41 4  seq.  There  is  also  a  special 
article  on  the  imperial  edition  of  this  manuscript  in  the  same  periodical  for 
April,  18G3,  vol.  xlv.,  p.  374.     For  more  exact  and  special  information,  the 


INTHODUCTION.  29 

asks  for  and  requires  from  us  our  reverent  consideration  and 
use.  Let  it  also  not  be  forgotten  that  we  have  now  at  last 
trustworthy  reprints  of  the  Vatican  Manuscript  above  al- 
luded to  ;*  and  further,  that  individual  scholars,  through  the 
labors  of  Mr.  Hansellf  and  the  enterprise  of  the  Oxford  Uni- 
versity Press,  can  now  themselves  refer  to,  and,  what  is  very 
important  in  finally  forming  a  critical  judgment,  read  con- 
nectedly, all  the  leading  manuscripts  of  the  diiferent  portions 
of  the  New  Testament.  With  such  aids  now  ready  to  our 
hand,  we  may  be  thankful  indeed  to  have  been  delayed  a  few 
years,  but  we  can  also  hardly  resist  the  feeling  that  the  hour 
is  fast  approaching  when  a  practical  and  national  use  should 
be  made  of  these  great  aids  toward  arriving  at  the  ipsissi- 
ma  verba  of  apostles  and  evangelists,  and  of  bringing  to  the 
ears  of  all  who  speak  our  language  the  truest  accents  of 
men  who  wrote  and  spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost. 
It  may  be  conceded  that  there  is  one  department  of  Bibli- 
stndyof  ver-  cal  scholai'ship  in  which  we  are  still  very  deficient, 

Bions  greatly  pit-  •    ^ 

neglected.  and  One  01  such  real  importance  that  we  might 
well  plead  for  longer  delay  if  there  seemed  any  reasonable 
prospect  of  the  deficiency  being  made  uj)  by  scholars  of  the 
present  time.  We  are  alluding  to  the  study  of  the  ancient 
versions  of  the  New  Testament.  If  there  seemed  any  grounds 
for  thinking  that  these  ancient  witnesses  would  be  more  sys- 
tematically consulted  for  exegetical  as  well  as  critical  pur- 
poses, if  there  was  any  probability  of  translations  being  made 
in  Latin,  German,  or  English,  of  the  Coptic,  Armenian,  or  Pell 

reader  must  be  referred  to  the  account  of  this  MS.  by  Tregelles,  and  the  elab- 
orate Prolegomena  of  Tischendorf. 

*  A  good  article  on  this  MS. ,  and  on  the  relation  to  it  and  to  the  Codex 
Beza  of  the  Curetonian  Syriac  Version  of  part  of  the  Gospels,  will  be  found 
in  the  Christian  Remembrancer  for  June,  1859,  vol.  xxxvii.,  p.  467. 

t  The  title  of  this  useful  and  valuable  work  is  Nov.  Testam.  Greece,  Anti- 
quissimorum  Codicutn,  ed.  E.  H.  Hansell,  Oxon.,  1865.  It  does  not  contain 
the  Codex  Sinaiticus,  having  unfortunately  been  commenced  before  that  man- 
uscript was  accessible.  It  contains,  however,  in  the  third  volume,  a  verj'  care- 
ful collation,  and  some  useful  critical  notes. 


30        ELLIVOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Piatt's  Ethiopic  Version,  it  would  be  Avise  to  wait  patiently 
till  these  had  come  into  the  hands  of  general  scholars,  and 
could  be  freely  used,  as  they  ought  to  be  used,  in  such  a  work 
as  the  revision  of  our  own  version.  But  it  is  perfectly  clear 
that  if  we  waited  for  such  aids,  important  as  they  confessed- 
ly are,  we  should  wait  in  vain.  There  is  no  disposition  in 
our  own  quick-moving  times  to  engage  in  the  labor  improbus 
that  such  studies  imply ;  there  is  no  willingness  on  the  part 
of  younger  scholars  to  devote  themselves  to  what  at  first 
sight  might  be  deemed  only  subsidiary  and  subordinate ;  and 
yet  all  experience  shows  that  there  is  no  more  really  valua- 
ble aid  in  the  difficult  work  of  deciding  between  conflicting 
interpretations  than  is  supplied  to  us  by  the  six  or  seven  ear- 
lier versions.*  In  them  we  commonly  have,  not  so  much  the 
opinion  of  the  individual  translation,  as  the  prevailing  voice 
of  the  ancient  Church  and  people  for  the  use  of  which  the 
version  was  originally  committed  to  writing.  We  have,  per- 
haps, the  combined  judgment  of  many  minds,  and  sometimes, 
in  the  case  of  the  earliest  versions,  may  have  traditional  in- 
terpretations which  date  almost  from  apostolic  times.  It  is, 
at  any  rate,  no  stretch  of  imagination  to  suppose  that  por- 
tions of  the  Peshito  might  have  been  in  the  hands  of  St.  John, 
or  that  the  Old  Latin  represented  the  current  views  of  the 
Roman  Christians  of  the  second  century.  Of  these  ancient 
witnesses,  the  two  already  named,  the  Gothic  and  the  Poly- 
glot Ethiopic  Version  (in  the  fairly  accurate  Latin  translation 
of  Bode)  are  tolerably  available,  but  the  best  edition  of  the 
Coptic  Version,  the  Ethiopic  of  Pell  Piatt,  and  the  Armenian, 
are,  we  believe,  up  to  the  present  time,  inaccessible  except  to 
the  student  of  these  unfamiliar  languages. 

But  to  wait  for  accurate  collations  of  these  versions  for 

*  The  reader  who  may  need  a  summary  account  of  these  ancient  versions 
will  find  it  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Art. ' '  Versions. "  He  may, 
perhaps,  also  be  refeiTed  to  the  Preface  to  my  Commentary  on  the  Pastoral 
Epistles,  and  also  on  the  Epistles  to  the  Philippians  and  Colossinns,  for  some 
comments  from  one  who  has  attempted,  as  far  as  he  was  able,  himself  to  use 
them. 


INTRODUCTIOK 


31 


exegetical  purposes  is  to  wait  in  vain.  There  is  no  greater 
likelihood  now  than  there  was  half  a  generation  ago  that  any 
further  advance  will  be  made  in  them  than  has  been  already- 
made — nay,  to  begin  the  work  of  revision  may  prove  the 
only  hopeful  way  of  directing  attention  to  this  portion  of  the 
subject.  We  have  among  us  a  few  Coptic,  Ethiopic,  and  Ar- 
menian scholars,  and  from  them  we  may  obtain  aid  when  it 
becomes  plain  that  it  is  really  wanted.  The  demand  may 
create  the  supply. 

If  this  be  so,  if  there  seems  really  good  ground  for  think- 
Division  of  i"a  that  the  time  has  at  last  come  for,  at  any 
the  subject.  j.j^^.g^  ^jjg  commencement  of  the  work,  and  that 
longer  delay  is  not  likely  to  place  us  in  any  better  position 
than  what  we  now  occupy,  the  pi-esent  is  clearly  the  time  for 
some  careful  preliminary  consideration,  both  in  reference  to 
the  nature  of  the  work  and  to  the  best  mode  of  attempting 
it.  Some  little  experience  has  been  already  acquired,  and  of 
this  it  seems  prudent  to  make  some  use,  if  only  by  way  of 
preparation  and  suggestion.  Let  us,  then,  deal  in  a  simple 
and  popular  way  with  the  general  subject,  and  apply  our  at- 
tention to  those  leading  questions  which  seem  naturally  to 
present  themselves  at  this  early  stage  of  the  work. 

These  questions  would  seem  to  come  before  us  for  consid- 
eration in  the  following  order  and  connection  :  First,  what  is 
the  critical  state  of  the  text  of  that  portion  of  the  Scriptures 
— the  New  Testament — that  we  are  more  particularly  con- 
sidering in  these  pages  ?  Seco7idly,  what  is  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
what  are  the  principles  on  which  it  was  constructed  ?  Third- 
ly, what  are  the  limits  to  which,  with  due  regard  to  these 
principles,  revision  should  probably  be  confined  ?  Fourthly, 
what  is  the  probable  amount  of  the  corrections  that  would 
thus  be  introduced — a  question  of  great  practical  importance, 
and  on  the  answer  to  which  much  will  be  found  hereafter  to 
depend?  Fifthly,  what  objections  of  real  weight  have  been 
urged  against  revision  ?  and.  Lastly,  if  a  revision  is  to  be  at- 


32        ELLICOTT  OX  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

tempted,  in  what  way,  and  under  what  authority,  would  it 
seem  best  for  us  to  proceed  ? 

Such  would  seem  to  be  the  leading  questions  in  connection 
Avith  the  subject  of  revision,  to  each  one  of  which  an  answer 
shall  be  returned  in  the  following  pages.  Our  first  consider- 
ations shall  be  on  the  text  which,  as  far  as  it  can  be  ascer- 
tained, was  used  by  the  scholars  and  divines  who  were  en- 
gaged in  the  work  of  the  last  revision. 


CRITICAL  VALVE  OF  TEXT  OF  THE  AUTK  VERSION.       33 


CHAPTER  n. 

THE    CRITICAL   VALUE    OF   THE   TEXT   OF   THE    AUTHORIZED 
VERSION^. 

In  discussing  the  interesting  and  practical  question  of  the 
critical  value  of  the  text  which  was  used  by  the  revisers  of 
1611,  we  are  naturally  led  into  some  cognate  questions  which 
it  may  be  convenient  to  discuss  in  the  present  chapter. 
These  shall  now  be  stated,  and  shall  receive  such  answers  as 
may  be  serviceable  to  the  general  reader.  In  no  part  of  the 
subject  is  technicality  necessarily  more  prominent,  but  it 
shall  be  avoided  as  far  as  is  consistent  with  accuracy  of  treat- 
ment. Attention  shall  be  more  directed  to  actual  facts  and 
results  than  to  the  details  on  which  they  depend. 

The  main  questions  which  have  now  to  be  considered  in 
Main  qnestions    connection  with  the  text  of  the  Authorized  Ver- 

to  be  consider-  .  -i  -r-r- 

ed.  sion  are,  it  would  seem,/bwr  m  number.    I'lrst^ 

it  will  be  clearly  necessary  to  ascertain  what  the  Greek  text 
actually  was  which  was  used  by  the  revisers.  Was  it  a  text 
they  constructed  for  themselves,  or  was  it  the  text  of  any 
current  edition,  and  if  so,  did  they  always  adhere  to  it? 
SeconcUij,  it  will  be  necessary  to  take  some  account  of  the 
critical  material  which  we  now  have,  and  of  which  the  re- 
visers had  no  knowledge.  This  will  naturally  lead  us,  in  the 
third  place,  to  consider  the  really  practical  question.  How 
best  to  use  this  material  in  any  future  revision,  whether  to 
construct  a  critical  text  first,  or  to  use  preferentially,  though 
not  exclusively,  some  current  text,  or  simply  to  proceed  on- 
^''^^isrard  with  the  work  of  revision,  whether  of  text  or  transla- 
tion, making  the  current  Textus  Receptus  the  standard,  and 
departing  from  it  only  when  critical  or  grammatical  consid- 
erations show  that  it  is  <^learly  necessary — in  fact,  solvere  am- 


34       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

hulando.  Lastly.,  it  will  perhaps  be  convenient  to  endeavor 
to  arrive  at  some  estimate  of  the  amount  and  the  importance 
of  the  changes  that  critical  considerations  alone  may  be  like- 
ly to  introduce  into  the  current  text,  there  being  on  this  sub- 
ject much  exaggeration  on  both  sides.  We  may  now  j^ro- 
ceed  to  consider  these  questions  more  in  detail. 

In  reference  to  the  first  question — What  the  Greek  text 
Thetextused  was  which  the  reviscrs  of  1611  actually  had  be- 
by  the  revisers.  ^^^.^  ^jjgj^  when  they  were  engaged  in  their  work 
— the  answer  can  easily  be  made  from  inspection  of  the  ver- 
sion. The  revisers  used  two  current  editions,  chiefly,  as  it 
would  seem,  Beza's  fourth  edition  of  the  Greek  Text,  pub- 
lished in  1589,  and  the  fourth  edition  of  Stephens — the  first 
of  the  editions  of  Stephens  that  was  divided  into  verses — 
which  was  published  in  1551.  As  both  these  editions  were 
scarcely  any  thing  more  than  reprints  of  the  editions  that 
respectively  preceded,  and  as  both  these  preceding  editions 
had  acquired  considerable  celebrity,  we  shall  be  quite  cor- 
rect in  saying  that  the  text  of  the  Authorized  Version  is  that 
of  the  third  edition  of  Beza's  Greek  Testament  of  1582  [Beza 
3],  and  of  Stephens's  Greek  Testament  of  1550  [Stephens  3]. 
On  a  close  examination  of  the  comparatively  few  passages  in 
which  Beza  3  differs  from  Stephens  3,  it  would  appear  that 
in  some  60  places  (notes  included)  the  Authorized  Version 
agrees  with  Beza  3  against  Stephens  3,  and  that  in  some  27 
or  28  places  (l  Cor.  x.,  38  being  apparently  an  error  of  the 
press)  it  agrees  with  the  latter  against  the  former ;  and  fur- 
ther, that  in  a  very  few  passages,  perhai^s  under  half  a  dozen, 
it  agrees  with  neither. 

But  we  shall  have  hardly  answered  our  first  question  sat- 
Pecii<Tree  of  isfactorily  unless  we  shortly  enter  into  the  fur- 
this  text.  ^jjgj,  question  of  the  pedigree  and  critical  value 
of  the  Greek  Text  on  which  our  own  version  thus  depends. 
What  was  the  history  and  critical  value  of  Stephens  3  and 
Beza  3  ?  Not  perhaps  vei-y  satisfactory  in  either  case.  The 
history, however, is  as  follows:  Beza  3  and  Stephens  3  really 


CRITICAL  VALUE  OF  TEXT  OF  THE  ATJTH.  VERSION.       35 

differ  so  little  that  we  may,  Avriting  popularly,  consider  them 
as  one  edition.  Both  editors  had  a  certain  amount  of  crit- 
ical materials,  the  greater  part  of  it  in  common,  and  collect- 
ed by  the  son  of  Stephens.  But  neither  of  them  made  any 
real  use  of  them.  Beza,  as  we  know,  had  in  his  possession 
the  celebrated  manuscript  that  bears  his  name  (D  of  the  Gos- 
pels and  Acts*),  and  the  nearly  equally  celebrated  Claromon- 
tane  Manuscript  (D  of  the  Epistles),  but  he  seems  to  have 
mainly  used  both  these  and  all  his  other  critical  aids  more 
for  exegetical  purposes  than  any  thing  else.  The  estimate 
he  took  of  various  readings  was,  it  would  seem,  almost  en- 
tirely a  theological  one.  StejAens  also,  though  he  began 
well,  and  based  the  text  of  his  first  edition  on  MSS.  in  the 
Royal  Library  at  Paris  and  on  readings  from  the  first  print- 
ed (though  not  first  published)  text,  viz.,  the  Complutensian, 
and  though  he  also  published  in  his  third  edition  a  collection 
of  some  2200  various  readings  from  15  different  MSS.  (one  of 
which  was  the  Codex  Bezse),  still  in  his  third  and  most  cele- 
brated edition  he  made  the  least  possible  use  of  them,  and 
even  lapsed  back  again  to  the  text  of  another  editor  that  had 
been  received  with  favor  three-and-twenty  years  before.  He 
frequently  deserts  the  text  of  his  own  first  and  second  edi- 
tions to  revert  to  that  of  the  anterior  editor. 

Who  was  this  editor  ?  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  it  was 
The  editions  Erasmus,  and  that  in  the  fourth  edition  ofJEras- 
of  Erasmus.  ^^^^^  ^g  really  have  the  mother-text  of  our  oicn 
Authorized  Version.  "What  then,  finally,  is  the  history  of  this 
Erasmian  text,  and  what  its  critical  value  ?  Its  history  is 
short.  In  the  year  1516,  Erasmus,  after  not  much  more  than 
six  months'  labor,  published  at  Basle  an  edition  of  the  Greek 

*  This  venerable  manuscript  has  recently  been  published  with  great  care 
and  accuracy  by  Mr.  Scrivener.  A  very  interesting  account  of  the  MS.  is 
prefixed.  For  a  thoroughly  good  review  of  this  important  work,  see  Chris- 
tian Remembrancer  for  Dec,  1864,  vol.  xlviii. ,  p.  416  seq.  All  the  recent  crit- 
ical articles  in  this  learned,  but,  we  fear,  now  suspended  Quarterly  Journal, 
are  especially  good,  and  in  most  instances  very  readable.  They  appear  to 
come  mostly  from  the  same  hand. 


36       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Testament,  and  so  got  the  start  of  the  splendid  Compluten- 
sian  edition  of  Cardinal  Xinaenes,*  the  New  Testament  portion 
of  which,  though  then  printed,  had  not  been  published,  and 
was  not  published  till  a  few  years  afterward.  Erasmus  hon- 
estly says  that  his  work  was  a  "  precipitated"  one.  It  was 
so :  he  was  not  insensible  to  the  value  of  ancient  testimony, 
and,  if  he  had  allowed  himself  time,  Avould  probably  have 
given  a  better  text  to  the  world  than  that  which  is  connect- 
ed with  his  name,  but  the  excusable  though  unfortunate  de- 
sire to  anticipate  the  lingering  volume  of  the  Compluten- 
sian  edition  marred  the  great  work,  and  the  evil  effects  of 
that  six  months  of  hurry  last  to  this  very  hour.  It  certainly 
is  somewhat  sad  now  to  know  that,  though  the  MSS.  which 
Erasmus  used  were  collectively  of  no  great  critical  value,  yet 
that  there  was  one  good  authority  among  them  which  he  never 
used,  for  the  very  reason,  as  he  himself  tells  us,  that  its  read- 
ings were  so  different  from  the  others.  This  manuscript  was 
the  cursive  Codex  Basiliensis,  marked  1  in  the  usual  lists  of 
such  documents,  and  fully  deserving  its  accidentally  given 
priority,  being  classed  by  Tregelles  (with  No.  33  and  No.  69) 
as  deserving  a  place  in  the  noble  group  of  ancient  uncial 
witnesses  which  is  headed  by  the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic  Manu- 
scripts.f 

It  is  vexatious  also  to  think  that,  with  a  little  effort,  Eras- 
mus might  have  procured,  through  his  friend  Paulus  Bom- 
basius,  a  transcript,  or,  at  any  rate,  a  collation  of  the  famous 

*  Perhaps  few  of  our  readers  may  have  actually  inspected  the  exquisite 
specimen  of  early  typography  which  the  noble  volumes  of  this  edition  present. 
We  may  mention,  then,  that  a  visit  to  the  large  library  in  the  new  house  of 
the  Bible  Society  will  enable  them  to  see  a  very  fine  copy  of  this  justly  cele- 
brated edition.  The  beauty  and  clearness  of  the  printing  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  most  striking,  and  the  tint  of  the  ink  is  of  that  welcome  gray-black 
tone  which  is  now  commonly  found  so  agreeable  to  modem  eyes. 

t  See  the  classification  of  Tregelles  in  his  edition  of  the  4th  vol.  of  Home, 
Introduction  to  the  Scriptures,  p.  106.  Some  useful  remarks  on  this  classifi- 
cation will  be  found  in  a  very  careful  and  elaborate  article  on  Textual  Criti- 
cism in  the  Christian  Remembrancer  for  July,  1864,  vol.  xlviii.,  p.  57  seq. 
See  also  the  good  article  in  Smith's  Dittionary  of  the  Bible,  vol.  iii.,  p.  506. 


CRITICAL  VALUE  OF  TEXT  OF  THE  AUTH.  VERSION.        37 

Vatican  Manuscript  (B)  itself.  He  referred,  we  know,  to  it 
in  regard  of  the  famous  text  in  the  first  Epistle  of  St.  John, 
and  had  a  transcript  sent  to  him  of  a  portion  of  the  fifth 
chapter.  How  strange  it  seems  that  we  were  so  near  a  good 
text,  and  yet  that  it  pleased  God  (for  such  things  are  doubt- 
less providentially  ordered)  that  a  sixteenth  century  manu- 
script of  the  ordinary  late  character  of  text  should  he  the  one 
chosen  by  Erasmus,  and  used  by  the  printer  (for  his  marks 
remain  on  it  to  this  day)  for  the  first  iniblished  edition  of  the 
Book  of  Life.  Such  incidents  are  really  mysterious.  To 
speculate  on  them  is  unwise,  but  it  does  still  seem  hard  to 
resist  the  conviction  that  the  unflagging  industiy  and  devo- 
tion that  has  been  conspicuously  shown,  generation  after 
generation,  in  the  critical  study  of  the  text  of  the  New  Test- 
ament, would  never  have  been  called  forth  but  by  these  very 
circumstances ;  and  that  the  knowledge  that  a  purer  text  of 
the  sacred  Volume  was  attainable  than  that  which,  one  hun- 
dred years  afterward,  was  dignified  by  the  title  of  the  Uni- 
versally Received  Text,  is  really  that  which  has  quickened 
scholars  and  critics  in  their  honorable  and  life-long  labors 
even  to  our  present  day. 

But  to  return  to  our  short  narrative.     This  first  edition  of 
Succeeding  edi-   Erasmus  was  Succeeded  by  a  second,  in  which 

tions  ofthefore-     ,  ,        .    ,„^      ,,         ,.  ,       ^, 

going.  there  were  about  400  alterations,  nearly  tliree 

fourths  of  which  were,  in  the  judgment  of  Mill,  decidedly  im- 
provements. This  edition  was  followed  by  the  famous  third 
edition,  in  which  1  John  v.,  V  first  appeared,  and  owing  to 
which  the  controversial  troubles  of  Erasmus,  already  suffi- 
ciently great  owing  to  his  Latin  Version,  were  considerably 
increased.  Soon  afterward  the  Complutensian  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament  at  length  appeared  to  the  world,  and  Eras- 
mus was  able  to  compare  his  own  work  with  that  of  Stunica 
and  Lebrixa,  and  to  correct  especially  what  most  certainly 
needed  correction,  the  text  of  the  Revelation  —  the  single 
manuscript  which  he  used  having  here  been  imperfect,  and, 
in  the  case  of  the  concluding  verses,  actually  so  defective 


38        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISIOX  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

that,  as  we  know,  Erasmus  had  here  to  produce  a  text  by 
retranslation  of  the  Vulgate  into  his  own  Greek.  In  this 
fourth  edition,  which  appeared  in  1527,  he  consequently  in- 
troduced changes  in  the  text  of  the  Revelation  in  about  90 
places,  and  corrected  and  removed,  though  not  wholly,  what 
he  had  himself  supplied.  In  other  portions  of  Scripture  there 
were  very  few  changes  made.  The  third  edition  had  differ- 
ed in  118  places  from  the  second,  but  the  fourth  differed  only 
in  about  16  from  the  third. 

Such  was  the  fourth  edition  of  Erasmus,  the  mother-edition 
of  the  Textus  Receptus  and  of  our  own  Authorized  Version. 
It  was  based,  as  we  have  seen,  on  scanty  evidence  and  late 
manuscripts.  It  contains  two  interpolations  which  the  edi- 
tor himself  introduced  on  his  own  responsibility,  viz..  Acts 
viii.,  37,  and  words  in  Acts  ix.,  5,  6.  It  is  especially  imsatis- 
factory  in  the  Revelation.  Where  in  any  degree  dependent 
on  a  vei'sion,  it  is  dependent  only  on  a  very  bad  and  even  de- 
formed text  of  the  Vulgate.  Such  it  is ;  and  yet,  by  the 
providence  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  through  the  loyalty 
and  reverence  Avith  which  the  Word  of  God  had  been  trans- 
mitted, and  that  faithfulness  Avhich  stirred  in  the  hand  and 
heart  even  of  the  writer  of  the  meanest  cursive  manuscript, 
it  is  lohat  it  is — so  far  substantially  in  accordance  with  what 
now  we  may  rightly  deem  to  be  the  true  text  as  justly  to 
call  forth  our  enduring  thankfulness  for  this  mercy  and  prov- 
idence of  Almighty  God.* 

*  This  general  statement  has  been  often  exaggerated.  It  has  been  said 
from  the  days  of  Mill  that  the  variations,  though  so  very  many  in  number, 
are  wholly  unimportant ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  especially  of  late  years,  it 
has  been  implied  that  the  changes  which  textual  criticism  would  introduce 
are  even  more  important  than  those  which  would  be  introduced  by  scholar- 
ship and  exegesis.  See  Westcott,  History  of  the  English  Bible,  p.  1 70.  This 
last  statement  is  perhaps  too  wide.  The  exact  state  of  the  case  would  seem 
to  be  that  there  are  some  important  passages,  especially  of  a  historical  char- 
acter (t.  e.,  Mark  xvi.,  9  seq.  ;  John  v.,  3,  5 ;  vii.,  .'iS-viii.,  11 ;  Acts  viii., 
37),  in  which  the  present  text  must  be  considered  either  incorrect  or  doubt- 
ful, but  that  there  are  not  many  in  which  doctrine  is  directly  involved.  A 
useful  paper  on  the  various  readings  of  the  New  Testament  (by  the  Rev.  R. 


CRITICAL  VALUE  OF  TEXT  OF  THE  AUTH.  VERSION.       39 

But  while  Ave  may  justly  retain  this  thankful  remembrance 
Present  afflu-    in  our  hearts,  while  we  mav  thus  rightly  bless 

ence  of  criiical  ,,  ^t<.  ii'-  o  ^  •  ■, 

materials.  and  auore  Gocl  lor  the  heritage  01  his  truth 
which  we  have  in  our  Authorized  Version,  let  us  not  forget 
that  the  same  God  who  thus  vouchsafed  his  providential  care 
to  the  transmission  of  his  Word  has  also  permitted  us,  in  the 
260  years  that  have  passed  away  since  that  version  was  pub- 
lished, and  es]3ecially  of  late  years,  to  have  acquired  a  very 
accurate  knowledge  of  what  were  probably  the  very  words, 
which  Avere  either  traced  by  the  hands  of  apostles  and  evan- 
gelists, or  dictated  by  them  to  the  faithful  writer.  This 
knowledge  we  now  have;  this  knowledge  it  must  be  our 
bounden  duty  reverently  and  faithfully  to  make  use  of  No 
mere  conservatism,  no  timid  apprehension  of  unsettling  a  be- 
lief, already  (God  knoweth)  so  unsettled  from  other  causes 
that  textual  criticism  would  rather  act  in  a  contrary  direc- 
tion— no  acquiescence  in  well  meant  but  really  ignorant  prej- 
udice, must  prevent  us  faithfully  bringing  out  of  the  treas- 
ures vouchsafed  to  us  every  item  that  will  aid  in  putting  be- 
fore us  in  their  truest  form  what  an  apostolic  father  has  not 
scrupled  to  call  "  the  true  sayings  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The 
only  question  will  be,  as  we  indicated  at  the  beginning  of  this 
chapter.  What  have  we  now  in  our  treasures  that  early  edi- 
tors had  not  ?  what  are  the  materials  now  at  our  disposal  for 
bringing  the  text  of  the  Authorized  Version  more  into  con- 
formity with  what  we  believe  to  have  been  the  original  text  ? 
Without  entering,  in  a  popular  essay  like  the  present,  into 
detailed  descriptions  of  MSS.  or  of  the  various  critical  mate- 
rials that  have  accumulated  in  the  last  two  centuries  and  a 
half,  let  us,  at  any  rate,  devote  two  or  three  pages  to  a  con- 
sideration of  the  sources  to  which  now  we  can  appeal  in  any 
revision  of  a  text. 

Critical  materials  consist,  on  the  one  hand,  of  ancient  un- 
cial manuscripts,  cursive   manuscripts,  ancient  versions  of 

B.  Girdlestone)  will  be  found  in  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Review  for  Octo- 
ber, 1869.     It  has  since  been  republished. 


40        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

the  Scripture,  quotations  of  Scripture  from  the  best  editions 
Critical  mate-  ^^  earlier  fathers;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  of 
"*^®*  all  these  technical  facts   and  principles  which 

the  study  of  ancient  documents  has  brought  out,  and  which 

continued  observation  has  confirmed. 
In  respect  of  the  first-named  of  these  materials,  the  uncial 

Uncial  manu-      manuscripts,  how  much  have  we  to  be  thankful 

scripts,  and  edi- 
tions of  them,      for,  how  much  we  owe  to  recent  industry,     Not 

to  mention  the  five-and-twenty  or  six-and-twenty  manu- 
scripts, whole  or  fragmentary,  of  secondary  importance, 
whether  of  the  Gospels  or  of  other  portions  of  Scripture — 
though  it  should  be  said  some  of  these  claim  places  all  but 
the  highest — let  us  remember  that  we  now  have  two  manu- 
scripts, the  second  of  which  contains  the  whole,  and  the  first 
nearly  the  whole,  of  the  New  Testament,  viz.,  the  Vatican  (B) 
and  Sinaitic  (x),  both  of  as  early  a  date  as  the  fourth  centu- 
ry, and  three  following  them  at  no'  distant  intervals,  the 
nearly  complete  Alexandrian  Manuscript  (A),*  the  fragment- 
ary rescript  at  Pai'is  bearing  the  name  of  the  Codex  Ephremi 
(C),f  both  probably  of  the  fifth  century,  and  for  the  Gosj^els 
and  Acts  only  a  remarkable  manuscript  that  bears  the  title 
of  the  Codex  Bezse  (D),  and  which  can  not  be  placed  later 
than  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century.  Besides  these,  we 
have,  for  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  valuable  Laudian 

*  The  Codex  Alexandrinus  has  been  recentk  published  in  a  convenient 
form  by  Mr.  Co\vper.  An  article  on  this  manuscript  >rill  be  found  in  the 
Christian  Remembrancer  for  June,  1861,  vol.  xli.,  p.  307  seq. 

t  This  manuscript,  which  bears  its  name  from  the  fact  that  the  original 
writing  has  been  in  great  measure  erased  to  allow  of  a  work  of  Ephrem  the 
Syrian  being  written  on  the  same  pai'chment,  has  been  edited  in  a  handsome 
volume  by  Tischendorf,  to  which  a  very  valuable  Introduction  has  been  pre- 
fixed. Ko  one  who  may  not  have  seen  manuscripts  of  this  nature  can  imag- 
ine the  patience  required  to  trace  the  all  but  erased  waiting  of  the  original 
text.  The  interesting  Codex  Zacynthius  (see  Christian  Remembrancer  for 
January,  18G2,  vol.  xliii.,  p.  128  seq.),  now  in  the  librarj'  of  the  Bible  Society, 
is  a  manuscript  of  this  nature,  which  any  one  interested  in  the  subject  will  do 
well  to  obtain  a  sight  of,  if  only  the  better  to  appreciate  the  labor  and  skill 
of  Tregelles,  who  deciphered  it,  we  believe,  without  the  use  of  any  chemical 
reagent. 


CRITICAL  VALUE  OF  TEXT  OF  THE  AUTH.  VERSION.       41 

Manuscript  (E),  not  later  probably  than  the  beginning  of  the 
sixth  century ;  for  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  the  first  four  manu- 
scripts already  specified,  the  valuable  Claromontane  (D  Epp.), 
and  the  later  but  very  important  Augiensian  Manuscript 
(F)  ;*  for  the  catholic  epistles  the  same  four,  and  a  manu- 
script of  the  ninth  century  of  fair  critical  value  (containing 
also  a  portion  of  the  Acts  and  the  whole  of  St.  Paul's  Epis- 
tles), bearing  the  title  Codex  Angelicus  (G) ;  and  even  for 
the  critically  ill-supplied  Apocalypse,  the  third  and  fourth  of 
the  great  manuscripts  first  named  (A  and  C),  and  a  manu- 
script of  a  trustworthy  character  now  in  the  Vatican  Library 
(B  Rev.),  and  of  the  eighth  century. 

Of  these  ten  manuscripts  the  eight  most  important  have 
been  published,  some  in  a  portable  and  convenient  form,  as, 
for  example,  the  Vatican,  Sinaitic,  Alexandrian,  Beza's,  and 
Augiensian,  some  in  more  expensive  forms,  but  all  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  make  it  not  only  possible,  but  easy  for  the  stu- 
dent to  read  and  study  the  text  of  each  in  its  sequence  and 
co7inectwn,  and  so  to  form  a  more  trustworthy  judgment  of 
the  peculiar  character  of  the  individual  document.  This  has 
been  facilitated  still  further  by  the  parallel-column  volumes 
edited  by  Mr.  Hansell,  to  which  reference  has  already  been 
made.  By  means  of  this  useful  work  the  student  is  now  en- 
abled not  only  to  read  continuously,  but  readily  to  compare 
all  the  really  great  manuscripts  (except  the  Sinaitic),  and 
thus  to  arrive  at  that  sort  of  practical  knowledge  of  these  an- 
cient witnesses  which  is  ever  found  to  be  of  the  utmost  value 
to  the  intelligent  critic  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  simplicity  and  dignified  conciseness  of  the  Vatican  Man- 
uscript, the  great  expansiveness  of  our  own  Alexandrian 
Manuscript,  the  partially  mixed  characteristics  of  the  Sinait- 
ic, the  paraphrastic  tone  of  the  singular  Codex  Bezae — these 

*  This  manuscript  has  been  excellently  edited  by  Mr.  Scrivener,  and  a 
very  complete  account  of  it  given  in  the  Introduction  prefixed  to  the  work. 
Some  useful  remarks  on  the  manuscript  will  be  found  in  the  Christian  Re- 
membrancer  for  June,  1859,  vol.  xxxvii.,  p.  500  seq. 

Hh 


42        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

general  facts,  all  not  only  to  be  ascertained,  but  to  be  famil- 
iarly felt  and  instinctively  acted  on  in  the  work  of  criticism, 
are  now  brought  home  to  the  student  by  the  works  above 
specified.  We  have  thus,  at  the  present  time,  not  only  in  our 
public  libraries  documents  of  the  greatest  value  of  which  our 
revisers  had  no  knowledge,  but,  owing  to  the  industry  of  re- 
cent critics  and  scholars,  reprints  and  editions  which  make 
them  available  almost  for  the  humblest  student.  When  Ave 
pause  to  think  of  our  present  critical  treasures,  and  the  easy 
access  that  is  thus  afforded  to  them,  and  remember  that  of 
the  great  manuscripts  above  alluded  to  only  one  was  in  any 
degree  used,  and  that  in  the  most  imperfect  manner,  by  those 
on  whom  our  revisers  had  to  rely  for  their  text,  it  would  seem 
impossible  to  doubt  that,  even  if  we  had  no  additional  rea- 
sons, it  is  now  an  imperative  duty  on  all  faithful  scholars  to 
combine  in  making  available  to  all,  the  results  of  a  cautious 
and  intelligent  revision  of  the  text  of  our  English  Testament. 
But  we  have  many  more  critical  subsidies  than  those  al- 
Additionai  crit-  I'^ady  Specified.  Not  to  weary  the  general  read- 
icai  materials,  g^.  ^-^^^  details,  we  may  shortly  notice  that  by 
the  labors  of  our  own  countrymen,  Dr.  Tregelles  and  Mr. 
Scrivener,  and  the  industry  of  Dr.  Tischendorf  and  other  Con- 
tinental critics,  we  have  now  arrived  at  a  greatly  improved 
knoAvledge  of  all  the  leading  cursive  manuscripts,  and  Yidive 
learned  to  assign  to  them  the  confessedly  subordinate  but 
still  important  place  they  hold  in  reference  to  textual  crit- 
icism. The  true  readings  of  the  quotations  of  Scripture  in 
the  eai-ly  fathers  have  also,  by  the  really  exhaustless  labors 
of  Dr.  Tregelles,  now  been  carefully  examined  and  tested, 
and  Ave  hope,  by  the  publication  of  the  concluding  parts  of 
his  Greek  Testament,  Avill  be  soon  made  critically  available 
to  all  students  of  the  sacred  text.  In  one  department  only 
is  there  still  some  deficiency.  We  lack  a  full  knowledge  of 
the  Ancient  Versions.  In  our  knowledge  of  the  Latin  Ver- 
sions, whether  the  Old  Latin  or  Vulgate,  great  advance  has 
been  made  by  the  publications  and  collations  of  Tischendorf 


CRITICAL  VALUE  OF  TEXT  OF  THE  AUTU.  VERSION:        43 

and  others.  To  the  Syriac  Versions  a  great  and  critically- 
important  addition  has  been  made  by  the  discovery  and  the 
publication  of  the  singular,  and  sometimes  rather  wild,  Cure- 
tonian  Syriac  Version.*  Much  has  also  been  done  in  the 
Gothic  Version  by  De  Gabelentz  and  Loebe,  Massmann,  Bos- 
worth,  and  others,  and  something  in  the  Coptic  by  Paul  de 
Lagarde,  and  in  the  Ethiopic  by  Pell  Piatt ;  but  it  must  be 
frankly  admitted  that  what  has  been  already  said  in  refer- 
ence to  exegesis  (p.  26)  is  also  partially  true  in  reference  to 
criticism.  Our  great  critics  have  had  avowedly  to  use  the 
eyes  of  others  in  ascertaining  the  testimony  of  some  of  these 
last-mentioned  versions,  and  of  the  less  important  but  still  in- 
teresting Armenian  Version.  It  is  not  unfair  to  say  that  if 
Dr.  Tischendorf  had  devoted  only  the  time  which  he  has  un- 
fortunately spent  in  personal  controversy  to  the  study  of  the 
original  languages  of  those  two  or  three  ancient  Oriental 
versions,  which  he  confessedly  only  cites  on  the  authority 
of  others,  he  would  have  put  all  scholars  and  critics  of  the 
New  Testament  under  still  greater  obligations  to  his  unwea- 
ried industry,  and  himself  have  been  still  better  qualified  to 
labor  for  the  inspired  Volume  for  which  he  has  done  so  much. 
But,  besides  these  great  accessions  of  critical  material,  it 
Critical  knowi-    must  not  bc  forgotten  that  a  fully  commensu- 

edge  proportion-  .  .  .  .      ,  ,  ,    -  -,   •        ■, 

ateiy  increased,  rate  increase  in  critical  knowledge  and  in  the 
power  over  materials  is  now  distinctly  to  be  recognized.  Not 
only  have  we  for  the  New  Testament  the  completed  work  of 
three  professed  critical  editors  of  a  very  high  order,  though 
of  singularly  diiferent  characteristics,  Lachraann,  Tischendorf, 
and  Tregelles,  but  the  useful  and  intelligent  labors  of  several 

*  A  good  account  of  this  version  and  its  characteristics  will  be  found  in 
the  Christian  Remembrancer  for  June,  1859,  vol.  xxxvii.,  p.  488  seq.  The  text 
is  of  a  very  composite  nature  ;  sometimes  it  inclines  to  the  shortness  and 
simplicity  of  the  Vatican  Manuscript,  but  more  commonly  presents  the  same 
paraphrastic  character  of  text  as  the  Codex  Bezae.  It  has  some  interesting 
readings,  e.g..  Matt,  v.,  4,  5,  where  it  confirms  the  express  statement  of  Ori- 
gen  that  the  blessing  on  the  meek  came  before  that  on  mourners.  We  do 
not,  however,  adopt  the  change. 


44       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

interpreters  and  commentators,  some  of  whom,  like  Dr.  Meyer, 
have  shown  considerable  acumen  and  aptitude  for  textual 
criticism.  What  is  even  more  important,  there  may  now  be 
observed  a  fairly  defined  consent  between  these  critics  and 
commentators  in  numberless  passages  in  the  New  Testament, 
where  what  would  seem  to  be  the  true  reading  differs  from 
that  of  the  Revised  Text.  The  useful  little  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament  by  Mr.  Scrivener  shows  this  very  distinctly 
in  the  case  of  the  professed  critical  editors,  and  a  very  cur- 
sory inspection  of  the  comments  ofDeWette,  Meyer,  Alford, 
and  others  will  substantiate  the  remark  in  the  case  of  recent 
interpreters.  Very  many  readings — perhaps  nearly  one  half 
of  those  about  which  reasonable  doubt  may  be  felt — would 
thus,  if  considered  by  revisers  of  suflBcient  critical  powers,  be 
decided  on  at  once  by  general  consent.  Manuscript  evidence 
and  critical  judgment  would  be  found  clearly  preponderant, 
and  in  a  large  portion  of  the  work  a  text  might  be  settled 
with  very  little  difficulty. 

This  is  a  consideration  which  may  well  weigh  with  us  when 
the  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  true  text  are  assumed  to 
be  so  excessive  that  revisers  would  be  stopped  in  limine  by 
the  difficulty  of  ascertaining  Avhat  the  true  words  really  were 
of  which  they  had  to  revise  the  translation. 

But  we  are  now  naturally  led  to  the  third  question,  which 
Undesirable  to  w'C  have  already  noticed  as  requiring  some  an- 

foim  a  Textus  *'  •  c  ^ 

Reccptua.  swcr,  n  hat  course  would  revisers  have  to  fol- 
low? As  we  have  said  already,  there  are  three  possible 
courses  they  might  take,  which  it  may  be  well  for  us  briefly 
to  consider.  Would  it  be  well  for  them,  in  the  first  place,  to 
agree  on  a  critical  Greek  text,  and  attempt  to  construct  a 
second  Textus  Receptus?  To  this  question  we  venture  to 
answer  very  unhesitatingly  in  the  negative.  Though  we 
have  much  critical  material  and  a  fair  amount  of  critical 
knowledge,  we  have  certainly  not  yet  acquired  sufficient  crit- 
ical judgment  for  any  body  of  revisers  hopefully  to  under- 
take such  a  work  as  this.    All  such  attempts,  whether  on  the 


CRITICAL  VALUE  OF  TEXT  OF  THE  AUTH.  VERSION.       45 

part  of  individuals  oi*  general  bodies,  are  indeed  at  joresent 
much  to  be  deprecated  as  certainly  jDremature,  and  as  natu- 
rally tending  to  delay  ultimate  progress.  We  are  steadily 
gravitating  to  a  consent  as  regards  a  very  considerable  num- 
ber of  passages ;  let  us  not  interfere  with  that  natural  pro- 
cess by  trying  to  anticipate  what  we  shall  successfully  arrive 
at  if  we  have  but  patience  and  industry.*  The  failures  of 
recent  critical  editors  in  their  attempts  to  construct  a  text 
may  well  prove  salutary  warnings  that  we  are  not  yet  ready 
for  the  work,  and  that  individual  critics  would  do  well  to 
pause  in  their  more  ambitious  efforts.  As  has  been  said,  they 
really  check  progress ;  if  only  from  this  circumstance,  that 
the  critical  editor  often  fails  to  give  a  true  statement  of  the 
actual  case.  He  probably,  on  very  serious  deliberation,  places 
a  certain  reading  in  his  text,  but  perhaps  neither  by  typog- 
raphy nor  by  marginal  annotation  indicates  to  the  general 
reader  that  another  reading  has  nearly  an  equal  right  to  oc- 
cupy the  position  of  honor.  Possession  has  thus  given  many 
a  reading  a  preferential  character  to  which  it  really  has  no 
exclusive  claim.  It  is  i7i  the  text ;  and  between  that  posi- 
tion and  one  outside  of  it,  the  difference,  in  the  judgment  of 
the  ordinary  student,  is  naturally  considered  to  be  immense. 
Griesbach  saw  this  clearly,  and  very  properly  acted  on  it; 
but  it  has  been  often  otherwise  with  recent  editors.  They 
have  only  indicated  their  opinion  by  their  text,  and  have  not 
at  the  same  time  perceived  that  in  assigning  a  place  in  the 
text  to  any  debated  word  or  clause,  they  really  have  thus 
been  passing  a  judgment  of  a  much  more  final  character  than 
they  themselves  would,  in  many  cases,  wish  it  to  be  consid- 

*  Some  very  good  and  sagacious  remarks  on  the  undesirableness  of  attempt- 
ing at  present  to  construct  an  authoritative  text  will  be  found  in  the  Chris- 
tian Remembrancer  for  June,  1859,  vol.  xxxvii.,  p.  503.  See  also  vol.  xlii.,  p. 
114,  and  vol.  xlviii.,  p.  59.  Whatever  individual  scholars  may  do,  it  is  to  be 
hoped  that  no  commission  would  consider  the  formation  of  a  text  a  prelim- 
inary duty  to  that  of  revision  of  the  translation.  The  latter  will  gradually 
pave  the  way  for  the  former ;  but  the  process,  we  venture  to  think  very  de- 
cidedly, could  not  wisely  be  inverted.    We  must  wait  for  a  Eeceived  Text. 


46       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

ered.  Let  us,  then,  have  no  Textus  Receptus,  at  any  rate  at 
present,  but  proceed,  as  good  sense  seems  to  indicate,  tenta- 
tively, and  be  content  to  wait.  Perhaps  in  a  very  few  years 
the  remaining,  number  of  passages  about  which  there  is  still 
considerable  doubt  will,  by  the  very  tentative  process  of  the 
work,  be  reduced  almost  indefinitely ;  but,  be  it  also  remem- 
bered, it  will  not  be  so  reduced  unless  the  work  is  attempted, 
unless  further  experience  is  acquired,  and  textual  revision 
actually  commenced. 

In  what  has  been  already  said  we  have  expressed  indirect- 
No  >-ecent  crit-  ly  our  Opinion  On  the  second  possible  course,  viz., 
taken.  that  of  adopting  the  text  of  some  known  critic, 

and  of  departing  from  it  only  where  there  seemed  strong  rea- 
son. Such  a  course  would  be  very  undesirable.  No  text 
has  yet  appeared  which  could  be  safely  adopted  as  the  text 
of  a  new  revision.  Would  it  be  possible,  for  instance,  to  take 
the  text  of  Lachmann  ?  Would  it  be  reasonable  to  base  our 
work  on  a  text  composed  on  the  narrowest  and  most  exclu- 
sive principles,  though  constructed  with  fair  adherence  to 
those  principles  ?  Assuming  that  Lachmann  has  by  his  work 
substantiated  his  intention  of  giving  to  the  world  the  text 
that  was  apparently  current  in  the  fourth  century,  would 
Lachmann  himself,  if  appealed  to,  have  judged  his  own  text 
a  suitable  text  to  form  the  basis  of  a  jjopular  revised  version  ? 
Self-sufiicient  as  he  was,  he  was  certainly  a  man  of  correct 
judgment  and  instinctive  scholarship,  and  would  have  been 
the  first  to  point  out  that  a  text  which,  on  the  most  favora- 
ble assumption,  was  only  the  text  of  a  certain  century,  was 
not  the  most  convenient  to  bend  into  the  direction  which  a 
hitherto  current  and  received  text  would  often  oblige  a  medi- 
ating critic  to  take.  Lachmann's  text  is  really  one  based  on 
little  more  than  four  manuscripts,  and  so  is  really  more  of  a 
critical  recension  than  a  critical  text. 

The  case  of  Tischendorf  is  still  more  easily  disposed  of,  as 
the  question  would  at  once  arise.  Which  of  this  most  incon- 
stant critic's  texts  are  we  to  select  ?    Surely  not  the  last,  in 


CRITICAL  VALUE  OF  TEXT  OF  THE  AUTH.  VERSION.       4>j 

which  an  exaggerated  preference  for  a  single  manuscript, 
which  he  has  had  the  good  fortune  to  discover,  has  betrayed 
him  into  an  almost  child-like  infirmity  of  critical  judgment.* 
Surely  also  not  the  seventh  edition,  which  was  issued  before 
the  appearance  of  the  Sinaitic  Manuscript,  and  which  exhib- 
its all  the  instability  which  a  comparatively  recent  recogni- 
tion of  the  authority  of  cursive  manuscripts  might  be  sup- 
posed likely  to  introduce.  If  any  edition  of  this  restless  crit- 
ic's Greek  Testament  had  to  be  selected,  perhaps  we  should 
feel  it  best  to  go  back  to  the  third ;  but  such  a  use  of  a  now 
forgotten  volume  is  never  likely  to  be  made  when  we  have 
in  our  own  country,  and,  it  is  to  be  lioped,  soon  in  a  complete 
state,  such  a  far  better  text  as  that  of  Dr.  Tregelles. 

And  yet,  though  it  seems  hard  to  say  so  after  the  life-long 
labors  of  its  estimable  constructor,  even  this  text  could  not 
wisely  be  chosen  as  the  text  to  be  used  in  the  work  of  revi- 
sion. In  the  first  place,  in  the  earlier  parts  of  his  work,  Dr. 
Tregelles  had  not  the  advantage  of  the  Sinaitic  Manuscript. 
In  the  second  place,  his  critical  principles,  especially  his  gen- 
eral principle  of  estimating  and  regarding  modern  manu- 
scripts, are  now,  perhaps  justly,  called  in  question  by  many 
competent  scholars.  Thirdly,  though  his  materials  have  been 
so  much  more  abundant,  he  approximates,  at  any  rate  in  some 
parts  of  his  great  work,  so  closely  to  the  same  results  as  Lach- 
mann,  that  any  objections  which  may  exist  to  the  choice  of 
Lachmann's  as  a  standard  text  apply  with  nearly  equal  force 

*  An  able  writer  in  the  Christian  Remembrancer  for  April,  18G6,  has  care- 
fully analyzed  the  amount  of  fluctuation  which  is  to  be  obsert-ed  in  Tischen- 
dorf's  latest  critical  decisions  as  compared  with  those  in  earlier  editions. 
From  this  analysis  it  would  seem  that  between  his  Greek  Testament  of  1849 
and  that  of  1859,  or  his  3d  and  so-called  7th  editions,  there  are  1296  varia- 
tions ;  and  that  in  nearly  half  of  these  he  returns,  in  the  later  edition,  to  the 
Textus  Receptus.  When,  however,  we  examine  his  recent  and  last  edition, 
it  appears  that,  to  go  no  farther  than  the  first  thirty-two  chapters,  he  reverses 
his  judgment  of  1859  in  as  many  as  1G8  places,  and  again  falls  back  on  his 
earlier  opinion  of  1849.  This  great  inconstancy  is  to  be  attributed  to  a  nat- 
ural want  of  sobriety  of  critical  judgment  and  to  an  unreasonable  deference 
to  the  readings  as  found  in  his  own  Codex  Sinaiticus, 


48       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

to  that  of  Tregelles.  Lastly,  though  it  seems  an  ungracious 
criticism,  yet  it  must,  in  all  frankness,  be  said  that  the  text 
of  Tregelles  is  not  in  all  respects  satisfactory.  It  is  rigid  and 
mechanical,  and  sometimes  fails  to  disclose  that  critical  in- 
stinct and  peculiar  scholarly  sagacity  which  is  so  much  need- 
ed in  the  great  and  responsible  work  of  constructing  a  crit- 
ical text  of  the  Greek  Testament.  The  edition  of  Tregelles 
will  last,  perhaps,  to  the  very  end  of  time  as  a  noble  monu- 
ment of  faithful,  enduring,  and  accurate  labor  in  the  cause  of 
Truth ;  it  will  always  be  referred  to  as  an  uniquely  trustwor- 
thy collection  of  assorted  critical  materials  of  the  greatest 
vdlue,  and,  as  such,  it  will  probably  never  be  superseded ;  but 
the  text  which  is  based  on  these  materials  is  not  likely  ever 
to  be  a  popular  or  current  text,  or  ever  to  be  used  otherwise 
than  as  a  faithful  summary  of  critical  principles  which  have 
by  no  means  met  with  general  acceptance. 

We  seem  driven,  then,  to  the  third  alternative  in  reference 
deceived  Text  to  a  tcxt — solvcre  ambulando,  or,  in  other  words, 

to  be  used,  but  i      -n        •       t  m  i  t       t   i 

to  be  revised,  to  leavc  the  Keceived  lext  as  the  standard,  but 
to  depart  from  it  in  every  case  Avhere  critical  evidence  and 
the  consent  of  the  best  editors  point  out  the  necessity  of  the 
change.  Such  a  text  would  not  be,  nor  deserve  to  be,  es- 
teemed a  strictly  critical  text :  it  would  be  often  too  conserv- 
ative ;  it  would  also  be  occasionally  inconsistent;  but,  if  thus 
formed  by  a  body  of  competent  scholars,  it  would  be  a  criti- 
cal revision  of  a  very  high,  and,  probably,  very  popular  char- 
acter. It  would,  at  any  rate,  be  free  from  one  great  disturb- 
ing element  in  all  critical  labors,  individual  bias  and  personal 
predilections. 

Such  a  work  would  not  be  by  any  means  difficult.  In  the 
first  place,  it  has  been  attempted  by  five  scholars  working  in 
combination,  and  found  by  experience  not  in  any  degree  to 
be  unmanageable  or  unsatisfactory  in  its  results.  In  the 
next  place,  those  engaged  in  the  work  would  have,  not  mere- 
ly the  actual  external  critical  evidence  whereor*  to  rely  for 
the  correction  of  the  text  on  which  they  were  working,  but, 


CRITICAL  VALUE  OF  TEXT  OF  THE  AUTH.  VERSION.       49 

as  has  been  already  hinted,  they  would  also  have  the  judg- 
ment, very  frequently  unanimous,  first,  of  professed  critics, 
and,  secondly,  of  intelligent  interpreters,  on  which  they  might 
often  feel  disposed  conscientiously  to  rely.  They  would  have 
available  not  only  the  critical  materials,  but  the  pi'actical' 
judgments  that  had  been  passed  on  them  in  the  texts  of  the 
best  editors  and  commentators, 

This  is  a  consideration  that  deserves  very  carefully  to  be 
borne  in  mind  by  any  who  may  be  inclined  to  overestimate 
the  difficulties  which  revisers  would  meet- with  in  the  matter 
of  a  text. 

It  need  scarcely  be  added  that  such  a  mode  of  proceeding 
would  have  to  be  tentative.  Principles  would  be  slowly 
formed  as  the  work  went  on,  but  at  length  they  would  be- 
come fixed  and  recognized,  and  all  that  would  be  found  nec- 
essary would  be  to  review  all  the  earlier  part  of  the  woi'k, 
during  which  the  exj)erience  was  being  acquired,  and  to  bring 
it  up  to  the  general  standard.  And  the  results  would  be 
found  to  be  satisfactory.  We  are  bold  enough  to  say  this, 
because  trial  has  fairly  shown  that  what  is  here  specified  and 
recommended  is  feasible  and  hopeful.  Such,  then,  would 
seem  to  be  the  best  mode  of  dealing  with  the  confessedly  dif- 
ficult question  which  stands  third  in  the  questions  of  the  pres- 
ent chapter. 

The  last  question  may  now  be  shortly  answered :  On  the 

Amount  of     assumption  that  such  a  mode  of  dealing  with 

change  esti-  -,■,■,  i>     ^ 

mated.  the  text  toas  adopted,  what  amount  01  change, 

due  purely  to  textual  revision,  might  be  expected  in  our  pi-es- 
ent  Authorized  Version  ?  Such  a  question  it  certainly  seems 
very  desirable  to  attempt  to  answer,  as  there  is  evidently  a 
very  exaggerated  idea  now  popularly  entertained  as  to  the 
amount  of  change  that  would  be  introduced  by  judicious 
textual  criticism.  But  how  shall  the  answer  be  made  ?  Per- 
haps thus :  By  taking  account  of  the  changes  of  text  that 
actually  were  proposed  in  one  Gospel  and  three  long  Epistles 
in  a  revision  already  alluded  to — the  Revision  by  Five  Cler- 


50        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

gyinen  of  the  Authoiized  Version  of  St.  John's  Gospel  and 
the  first  three  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  as  arranged  in  our  ordi- 
nary Testaments,  viz.,  Romans  and  1  and  2  Corinthians.  The 
Gospel  and  these  three  Epistles  amount  to,  estimated  in  ver- 
ses, between  one  quarter  and  one  third  of  the  whole  New 
Testament :  an  estimate,  therefore,  founded  on  the  considera- 
tion of  so  large  a  portion  of  the  sacred  Volume  will  not  be 
very  seriously  incorrect. 

By  inspection  of  the  Revision  referred  to,  we  find  that  in 
the  2006  verses  which  the  Gospel  and  three  Epistles  together 
contain,  there  are  253  changes  of  text  due  to  critical  consid- 
erations, being  48  for  the  8*79  verses  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John, 
56  for  the  433  verses  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  91  for  the 
437  verses  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  58  for 
the  257  verses  of  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  In 
this  enumeration  we  observe  that  there  would  seem  to  be  an 
increase  in  change  as  the  work  went  on ;  but  it  would  seem 
ultimately  to  have  become  stationary,  and  to  have  finally 
amounted  to  about  one  change  in  every  five  verses  in  St. 
Paul's  Epistles.  And  that  this  seems  accurate  may  be  proved 
by  an  inspection  of  the  changes  in  the  Revision  of  the  four 
succeeding  Epistles,  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  and 
Colossians  —  in  all  496  verses.  Here  we  find  109  textual 
changes,  or  very  nearly  the  same  proportion.  If,  then,  we 
assume  that  more  changes  would  have  been  made  in  St. 
John's  Gospel  if  the  gradually  established  standard  of  revis- 
ion had  been  applied  to  it,  though,  as  the  nature  of  the  text 
reminds  us,  not  to  the  extent  arrived  at  for  St.Paul's  Epistles 
— and  if  also  we  take  into  account  the  increase  of  difierences 
over  those  in  St.  John's  Gospel  that  would  be  probably  found 
in  the  Synoptical  Gospels,  and  in  the  Acts  and  Revelation, 
we  should  hardly  be  far  wrong  in  estimating  the  amount  of 
changes  that  would  be  introduced  in  any  English  revised  vei'- 
sion  of  the  whole  6944  verses  of  the  New  Testament  as  not 
exceeding  one  for  every  five  verses,  or  under  fourteen  hundred 
in  all,  very  many  of  these  being  of  a  wholly  unimportant 
character. 


CRITICAL  VALUE  OF  TEXT  OF  THE  AUTH.  VERSIOX.       51 

Such  seems  the  answer  to  the  last  question  we  have  sug- 
gested in  the  present  chapter.  The  subject  of  the  text  and 
of  probable  textual  change  seems  now  concluded,  and  the 
second  portion  of  our  work  to  begin,  viz.,  a  consideration  of, 
and  finally  a  rough  estimate  of  the  changes  that  would  have 
to  be  introduced  on  grammatical,  exegetical,  and  possibly 
also  some  other  grounds  which  may  suggest  themselves  in 
the  review  of  the  whole  subject. 

This  second  class  of  changes  can  only  be  introduced  with 
strict  and  persistent  reference  to  the  general  aspect  and  char- 
acteristics of  the  last  revision.  We  proceed,  then,  next  to 
consider  these  characteristics,  and  the  principles  on  which 
the  Authorized  Version  of  the  New  Testament  appears  to 
have  been  constructed. 


52        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


CHAPTER  III. 

LEADING   CHARACTERISTICS    OF   THE    AUTHORIZED   VERSION. 

It  is  obvious  that  no  revision  of  the  present  version  can 
Character  of  our  properly  be  Undertaken  that  does  not  preserve 

version  must  be  .  ' 

preserved.  the  wisely -drawn  lines  on  which  that  version 

was  constructed.  No  reasonable  Englishman  would  tolerate 
a  version  designed  for  popular  use,  and  to  be  read  publicly, 
that  departed  from  the  ground-principles  and  truly  noble  dic- 
tion of  the  last  revision.  Such  a  version  Avould  simply  pass 
into  that  limbus  of  "  improved"  and  happily  forgotten  trans- 
lations to  which  almost  every  generation,  for  the  last  hun- 
dred and  fifty  or  two  hundred  years,  has  added  some  speci- 
men. The  present  century  has  been  more  prolific  than  those 
which  preceded  it,  but  very  few  of  the  yet  extant  revisions 
have  been  happy  in  pi-eserving  the  character,  tone,  rhythm, 
and  diction  of  the  version  they  have  undertaken  to  amend. 
It  may  be  wise  then,  at  the  very  outset,  to  endeavor  to  ob- 
tain a  clear  knowledge  of  the  principal  features  and  general 
characteristics  of  our  present  version,  that  so,  before  revision 
is  undertaken,  we  may  be  able  to  define  sharply  Avhat  must 
be  its  nature  and  limits,  if  it  is  to  be  a  revision  that  is  in  any 
degree  to  meet  with  general  acceptance. 

If  it  is  to  be  hereafter  a  popular  version  it  can  only  become 
so  by  exhibiting,  in  every  change  that  may  be  introduced,  a 
sensitive  regard  for  the  diction  and  tone  of  the  present  ver- 
sion, and  also  by  evincing,  in  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
changes,  a  due  recognition  of  the  whole  internal  history  of 
the  English  New  Testament.  In  other  words,  the  new  work 
must  be  on  the  old  lines. 

And  now  what  were  those  lines,  and  how  may  we  best 
trace  them  ?    Perhaps  thus :  first,  by  briefly  considering  what 


LEADING  CRARACTEBISTICS  OF  AUTH.  VERSIOX.  53 

may  be  termed  the  pedigree  of  the  present  English  Version ; 
and,  secondly, by  shortly  noticing  the  principles  which  in  the 
last  revision  apjjear  mainly  to  have  been  followed. 

The  literary  pedigree  of  our  present  version  has  perhaps 
Pedigree  of  our  ^ever  been  more  succinctly,  and,  for  the  most 
present  veisiou.  p^vt,  accurately  stated  than  in  the  following 
words:  "Our  present  English  version  was  based  upon  the 
Bishops'  Bible  of  1568,  and  that  upon  Cranraer's  of  1539, 
which  was  a  new  edition  of  Matthew's  Bible  of  1537,  partly 
from  Covei'dale  of  1535,  but  chiefly  from  Tyndale;  in  other 
words,  our  present  authorized  translation  is  tnainly  that  of 
Tyndale  made  from  the  original  Hebrew  and  Greek."*  A  lit- 
tle expansion  and  illustration  of  this  sentence  will  enable  the 
general  reader  fairly  to  appreciate  the  internal  character  of 
our  present  version. 

The  first  fact  clearly  to  be  borne  in  mind  is  this,  that,  after 
all  changes  and  revisions,  our  present  English  Testament  is 
substantially  that  of  William  Tyndale.f  This  we  shall  deem 
it  necessary  to  prove  distinctly  by  a  comparison  in  parallel 
columns  of  three  or  four  passages,  taken  from  different  parts 
of  the  New  Testament.  Before,  however,  we  give  these  spec- 
imens, let  us  briefly  notice  the  characteristics  of  this  version, 
to  which  our  own  maintains  so  close  a  resemblance. 

Tyndale's  English  Testament  of  1534  will  remain  to  the  end 
Tyndaie's  Ver-    of  time  a  monument  of  the  courage,  patience, 

sion :  made  from  .  z^   1  1.  ■> 

the  Greek.  leammg,  Competent  scholarship,  thorough  faith- 

*  This  accurate  and  inclusive  sentence  is  taken  from  the  Preface  to  the 
scholarly  work  of  Bosworth  and  Waring,  entitled  Gothic  and  Anglo-Saxon 
Gospels,  Lond.,  1865.  See  pages  xxviii.,  xxix.  The  word  "mainly"  has 
been  italicized  for  the  reasons  that  will  appear  later  in  this  chapter.  The  re- 
lation of  the  A.V.  to  Tyndale's  is  very  close. 

t  It  has  been  observed  by  Mr.Westcott  that  in  several  portions  of  the  New 
Testament  Tyndale's  original  translation  remains  almost  intact.  For  in- 
stance, in  the  1st  Epistle  of  St.  John  about  nine  tenths  are  due  to  Tyndale, 
and  even  in  the  more  difficult  and  (as  to  translation)  debatable  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  about  five  sixths  belong  to  the  same  faithful  hand.  See  History  of 
English  Bible,  p.  211,  note.  An  interesting  and  appreciative  estimate  of  the 
character  of  this  good  man's  great  work  will  be  found  in  the  current  number 
of  the  Quarterly  Review,  vol.  cxxviii.,  p.  316.     See  above,  p.  16,  note  t- 


54:       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

fulness,  and  clear  English  sense  of  its  noble-hearted  and  de- 
voted editor.  Of  his  courage  and  patience  history  sufficient- 
ly speaks :  in  reference  to  his  learning  and  scholarship,  with 
which  we  are  here  more  especially  concerned,  a  few  remarks 
may  not  unsuitably  be  made.  That  his  learning  was  suffi- 
cient for  his  work  is  shown  by  the  work  itself  Besides  this, 
however,  we  know  that  more  than  twenty  years  before  his 
first  edition  of  1525  he  made  translations  of  portions  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  Tyndale  was  not  a  man  to  let  those 
twenty  years  pass  away  without  study  and  fresh  acquisitions 
of  knowledge.  "We  know  also  that  he  went  to  Cambridge, 
after  having  spent  some  years  at  Oxford,  most  probably  with 
the  view  of  studying  under  Erasmus,  who  himself  might  have 
been  contemplating  the  great  though  hurried  work  which  he 
did  a  very  few  years  later.  We  further  know  that  he  actu- 
ally produced  evidence  to  Tonstall  of  his  having  competent 
knowledge  of  the  Greek  language,  and  Tonstall  was  certain- 
ly not  a  man  to  whom  an  incompetent  Greek  scholar  would 
have  been  very  likely  to  have  submitted  any  specimen  of  his 
powers.  Whatever  may  be  said  of  Tyndale's  knowledge  of 
Hebrew  prior  to  his  publication  of  the  New  Testament,  it 
seems  perfectly  clear,  even  from  these  external  considera- 
tions, that  he  had  a  thoroughly  competent  knowledge  of 
Greek,  and,  further,  that  he  had  been  studiously  preparing 
himself  for  his  responsible  work.  Really,  with  his  work  in 
our  hands,  it  would  almost  seem  superfluous  to  have  adduced 
any  other  evidence ;  but,  as  very  unguarded  statements  have 
been  made  in  reference  to  Tyndale's  Testament,  even  by  an 
authority  as  great  as  Mr.  Hallam,*  and  as  the  students  of 

*  See  Literature  of  Europe,  chap.  \i.,  §  37,  vol.  i.,  p.  526,  where  we  meet 
with  the  thoroughly  mistaken  assertion  that  from  Luther's  translation, ' '  and 
from  the  Latin  Vulgate,  the  English  translation  of  Tyndale  and  Coverdale  is 
avowedly  taken."  That  he  was  indebted  to  some  extent  to  Luther  for  his 
prologues  and  notes  in  the  edition  of  1534  may  be  perhaps  fairly  admitted, 
but  that  his  translation  was  taken  from  that  of  Luther  may  most  confidently 
be  denied.  For  a  full  account  of  Tyndale's  labors,  see  the  excellent  Histor- 
ical Account  of  the  English  Versions  prefixed  to  Bagster's  Hexaph,\y.  40  seq.. 


.  LEADING  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  AUTH.  VERSION.  55 

Tyndale's  Testament  arc  but  few,  it  may  be  desirable  at  the 
very  outset  to  correct  the  erroneous  impression  that  we  owe 
the  real  original  of  our  present  version  to  German  transla- 
tions and  second-rate  learning.  It  is  quite  reasonable  to  be- 
lieve that,  especially  in  the  corrections  he  introduced  in  his 
edition  of  1534,  and  in  the  substance  of  some  of  his  terse 
notes,  he  may  have  owed  something  to  the  learning  and  la- 
bors of  foreign  reformers ;  but  it  is  also  certain  that  his  ver- 
sion is  essentially  of  English  origin,  and  that  the  earnest  and 
devoted  man  to  whom  we  owe  it  was  fully  equal  to  carry 
through  singlehanded  the  great  work  which  he  had  under- 
taken. 

In  addition  to  this,  it  does  not  seem  too  much  to  say  that 
Tyndale's  knowledge  and  scholarship,  as  far  as  we  can  infer 
from  the  times  and  the  circumstances  of  the  times  in  which 
he  lived,  was  exactly  of  the  kind,  if  one  man  was  to  do  the 
work,  best  suited  for  such  an  undertaking.  Had  he  been 
more  of  a  professed  scholar  there  would  have  been  some 
traces  of  pedantic  accuracy,  some  indications  of  adherence  to 
the  general  tone  of  tbe  Vulgate  on  the  one  hand,  or  to  the 
more  cultivated  language  of  the  day  on  the  other,  not  any  of 
which  are  to  be  recognized  in  the  noble  homeliness  of  the 
version  of  William  Tyndale.  As  it  was  providentially  or- 
dered, he  was  the  patient,  devoted  Englishman,  competently 
learned,  who  made  it  his  care  to  write  for  English  eyes  and 
English  hearts,  and  did  so  with  faithfulness,  geniality,  and 
breadth. 

The  first  fact  and  characteristic,  then,  of  Tyndale's  Version 
is  that  it  was  fairly  made  from  the  Greek,  and  that  Tyndale 
had  certainly  sufficient  learning  to  do  well  this  portion  of  the 
great  work  of  his  life. 

and  compare  Westcott,  flts^ory  of  English  Bible,  p.  174  seq.  Fuller's  sum- 
mary is  characteristically  short  and  quaint:  "However,  what  he  [Tyndale] 
undertook  was  to  be  admired  as  glorious ;  what  he  performed,  to  be  com- 
mended as  profitable ;  wherein  he  failed  is  to  be  excused  as  pardonable,  and 
to  be  scored  on  the  account  rather  of  that  age  than  of  the  author  himself." 
See  Church  History,  book  v.,  4,  39,  p.  224  (Lond.,  1G55). 


5G       ELLICOTT  ON  BEYISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

The  second  characteristic  of  his  version  is  one  which  may- 
independent  of  at  first  surprise  us,  but  for  which  we  may  be 

the  then  extant  .,        •,       ^  n  -i       •         i  ii-  ir>ii 

versions.  heartily  thankiul,  viz.,  that,  as  he  himseli  tells 

us,  he  made  no  use  of  the  then  extant  versions  of  the  Scrip- 
ture. The  most  popular  version  would  no  doubt  then  have 
been  the  easy  and  smoothed  edition  of  WiclifFe's  original  ver- 
sion commonly  associated  with  the  thoroughly  honorable 
name  of  Wicliffe's  curate  at  Lutterworth,  John  Purvey.* 
That  neither  this  nor  any  of  the  Wiclifiite  versions  were 
made  the  basis  of  Tyndale's  work  is  certainly  a  subject  for 
profound  thankfulness.  With  every  desire  to  honor  the  name 
and  labors  of  Wicliffe,  and  with  a  full  recognition  of  his 
general  accuracy  as  a  translator,  and  even  a  critic,  we  can 
not  forget,  first,  that  his  version  was  from  the  Vulgate,  and 
was  thus  a  version  of  a  version ;  secondly,  that  it  adheres, 
where  possible,  to  the  form  and  structure  of  the  Latin,  the 
intention  of  the  version  being,  most  probably,  not  only  to 
benefit  the  mere  English  reader,  but  to  aid  the  student  of 
the  Vulgate ;  thirdly,  that,  though  generally  very  homely  in 
its  language,  it  still  has  many  more  words  of  Latin  origin 
than  we  should  have  expected  from  Wiclifie's  avowed  desire 
to  give  an  English  Testament  to  English  readers.  It  must 
then  be  regarded  as  providential  that  such  a  version  did  not 
form  the  basis  of  our  present  Bible.  Had  it  been  so  ordered, 
the  English  Bible  of  our  day  would  have  become  ultimately 
a  sort  of  Rhemish  Version,  rigid,  cold,  and  Latinized.f 

*  For  an  account  of  this  reviser  and  of  his  labors,  see  the  Preface  to  For- 
shall  and  Madden,  Wicliffite  Versions,  p.  xxviii.  seq.  Purvey  did  his  work 
with  care  and  judgment,  and  had  conceptions  of  the  duties  of  a  translator  of 
the  Scriptures  considerably  in  advance  of  the  times  in  which  he  lived.  See 
also  Historical  Account  (Bagster's  Hexapla),  p.  28  seq. ,  and  Westcott,  Histo- 
ry of  English  Bible,  p.  IG. 

t  It  is  singular  that  a  writer  so  well  informed  as  Marsh  {Lectures  on  the 
English  Language)  should  regard  Tyndale's  Version  as  little  more  than  a  re- 
cension of  Wicliffe's,  and  "Tyndale  as  merely  a  fnll-gro^\'n  Wicliffe"  (p.  027). 
It  is,  of  course,  not  only  possible,  but  probable,  that  Tyndale  was  acquainted 
with  Wiclifie's,  or,  more  probably,  Purvey's  Version,  but  that  he  used  it  in 
any  way  in  making  his  own  translation  may  most  justly  be  doubted.     Tyn- 


LEADING  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  AUTU.  VERSION.  57 

It  is  equally  providential  that  the  Wicliffite  Version  that 
is  attributed  to  Purvey,  and  Avbich  ultimately  superseded  the 
earlier  version,  did  not  become  either  the  basis  or  model  for 
our  own  version ;  for,  though  Purvey's  prologue  to  his  work 
is  most  interesting,*  and  some  of  his  principles  of  translation 
thoroughly  just,  yet  a  version  so  studious  of  English  idiom 
rather  than  of  grammatical  accuracy,  and  so  loose  and  para- 
j)hrastic  as  w^e  certainly  sometimes  find  it,  would  have  been 
a  very  foundation  of  sand  for  the  English  Bible  of  the  future. 
It  is,  then,  not  without  just  thankfulness  that  we  find  that 
neither  of  these  versions  exercised  any  appreciable  influence 
Avhatever  either  on  Tyndale's  Testament  or  on  any  of  those 
that  followed  it,  unless,  indeed,  it  be  the  du-glot  Testament 
of  Coverdale. 

A  third  characteristic  of  Tyndale's  Version  must  briefly  be 

Tyndale's  Ver-  noticcd — that  it  was  designedly  a  popular  ver- 
sion thoroughly     .  o  j       -i    ^ 

popular.  sion.     The  well-known  and  often  quoted  words 

that  "  the  boy  that  driveth  the  plow  should  know  more  of 
the  Scripture"!  ^^^^"  the  theologians  of  the  day,  represented 
truly  Tyndale's  life-long  purpose.  It  is  to  this  steady  aim 
and  purpose  that  the  special  and  striking  idiomatic  excel- 
lence of  the  Authorized  Version  is  pre-eminently  due.  To 
this  deep  resolve  we  owe  it  that  our  own  English  Version  is 
now  what  we  feel  it  to  be — a  version  speaking  to  heart  and 

dale's  work  seems  to  have  been  perfectly  independent.  See  Westcott,  Histo- 
ry of  English  Bible,  p.  17G  seq. 

*  This  prologue  will  be  found  in  Forshall  and  Madden,  Wicliffite  Versions, 
p.  XXV.  seq.,  and  a  portion  of  it  in  Historical  Account  (Bagster's  Hexapla),  p. 
28  seq.  The  prologue  is  thoroughly  interesting  and  sensible.  He  notices 
his  obligation  to  "Lire  [N.  de  Lyra]  in  the  elde  testamente  that  helpyd  full 
miche  in  hys  werke ;"  and  in  reference  to  translation  lays  down  the  general 
canon  that  "ye  beste  translatyng  out  of  Latyne  into  Englysh  is  to  translate 
after  the  sentence,  and  not  only  after  the  wordis."  Many  a  reviser  may  take 
this  hint. 

t  The  influence  exerted  by  Erasmus  and  his  labors  on  Tyndale  has  often 
been  noticed.  Even  in  this  familiar  quotation  it  would  seem  that  Tyndale 
was  but  reproducing  a  sentiment  from  the  "  Paraclesis"  of  Erasmus,  prefixed 
to  his  Testament  of  1519.  See  Historical  Account  of  the  English  Versions 
(Bagster),  p.  43,  44. 

Il 


58       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

soul,  and  appealing  to  our  deepest  religious  sensibilities  with 
that  mingled  simplicity,  tenderness,  and  grandeur  that  make 
us  often  half  doubt,  as  we  listen,  whether  apostles  and  evan- 
gelists are  not  still  exercising  their  Pentecostal  gift,  and 
themselves  speaking  to  us  in  the  very  tongue  wherein  we 
were  born.  Verily  we  may  bless  and  praise  God  that  Tyn- 
dale  was  moved  to  form  this  design,  and  that  he  was  permit- 
ted faithfully  to  adhere  to  it,  for,  beyond  doubt,  it  is  to  that 
popular  element  in  his  version  not  only  that  we  owe  nearly 
all  that  is  best  iu  our  present  English  Testament,  but  that 
there  remains  to  this  very  hour,  in  the  heart  of  all  earnest 
English  i^eople,  an  absolute  intolerance  of  any  changes  in  the 
words  or  phraseology  that  would  tend  to  obscure  this  spe- 
cial, and,  we  may  justly  say,  this  providential  characteristic* 
Tyndale  not  only  furnished  the  type  for  all  succeeding  ver- 
sions, but  bequeathed  principles  which  will  exercise  a  pre- 
servative influence  over  the  version  of  the  English  Bible, 
through  every  change  or  revision  that  may  await  it,  until 
scriptural  revision  shall  be  no  longer  needed  and  change  shall 
be  no  more. 

We  may  now  proceed  to  show  by  actual  comparison  the 
close  relation  that  exists  between  Tyndale's  Version  and  our 
present  Authorized  Version.  Three  jsassages  have  been  cho- 
sen, not  from  containing  any  greater  amount  of  coincidences 
of  expressions  than  others,  but  simply  as  being  portions  of 
Scripture  of  familiar  interest  and  of  convenient  length. 

The  first  shall  be  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus, 
St.  Luke  xvi.,  19-31. 

*  The  eloquent  words  of  Froude,  when  alluding  to  the  publication  of  Cov- 
erdale's  Bible,  and  its  close  connection  with  the  labors  of  Tyndale,  may  well 
be  cited.  The  histoi'ian  justly  says,  "The  peculiar  genius — if  such  a  word 
may  be  permitted — which  breathes  through  it — the  mingled  tenderness  and 
majesty — the  Saxon  simplicity — the  preternatural  gi-andeur — unequaled,  un- 
approached  in  the  attempted  improvements  of  modern  scholars — all  are  here, 
and  the  impress  of  the  mind  of  one  man — William  Tyndal. " — History  of  En- 
gland, vol.  iii.,  p.  84.  These  words  the  student  will  find  truly  deserved.  The 
more  Tyndale"s  labors  are  considered,  the  more  will  they  be  valued. 


LEADIXG  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  AUTH.  VERSION. 


59 


Ttndale.     15S  t, 

"  Ther  was  a  certayne  ryche  man, 
which  was  clothed  in  pui-ple  &  fyne 
bysse  &  fored  deliciously  eveiy  daye. 
""  And  ther  was  a  certayne  begger, 
named  Lazarus,  whiche  laye  at  his 
gate  full  of  scores  "'  dessyringe  to  be 
refresshed  with  the  cromes  which  fell 
from  the  ryche  mannes  borde.  Nev- 
erthelesse  the  dogges  came  &  licked 
his  soores.  ^^  And  yt  fortuned  that 
the  begger  dyed,  &  was  carried  by 
the  Angelles  into  Abrahams  bosome. 
The  riche  man  also  died,  &  was  buried. 

*^  And  beinge  in  hell  in  tormentes, 
he  lyfte  up  his  eyes  &  sawe  Abraham 
a  farre  of,  &  Lazarus  in  his  bosome 
'*  &  he  cryed  &  sayd :  father  Abra- 
ham have  mercy  on  me  &  sende  Laz- 
arus that  lie  may  dippe  the  tippe  of 
his  fynger  in  Avater  &  cole  my  tonge 
for  I  am  tourmented  in  this  flame. 
^*  But  Abraham  sayd  \'nto  him  Sonne, 
remember  that  thou  in  thy  lyfe  tyme 
receavedst  thy  pleasure  &  contrary- 
wyse  Lazarus  payne.  Now  therefore 
is  he  comforted,  &  thou  art  punyssh- 
ed.  '°  Beyonde  all  this,  bitwene  you 
&  vs  ther  is  a  greate  space  set,  so  that 
they  which  wolde  goo  from  hence  to 
you  cannot :  nether  maye  come  from 
thence  to  vs. 

'  2'  Then  he  sayd  :  I  praye  the  ther- 
fore  father,  send  him  to  my  fathers 
housse.  **  For  I  have  fyve  brethren ; 
for  to  warne  them,  lest  they  also  come 
into  this  place  of  tourment.  ^'  Abra- 
ham sayd  vnto  him  they  have  Moses 
&  the  Prophetes  let  them  heare  them. 
"  And  he  sayd :  naye  father  Abra- 
ham, but  yf  one  came  unto  them, 
from  the  ded,  they  wolde  repent.  ^'  He 
sayd  vnto  him  :  If  they  heare  not  Mo- 
ses &  the  Prophetes  nether  will  they 
beleve  though  one  roose  fiom  deeth 
agayne. 


AuTH.  Version.     1G  1 1 . 

"  There  was  a  certain  rich  man, 
which  was  clothed  in  purple  and  fine 
linen,  and  fared  sumptuously  every 
day :  ""  And  there  was  a  certain 
beggar  named  Lazarus,  which  was 
laid  at  his  gate,  full  of  sores,  "  And 
desiring  to  be  fed  with  the  crumbs 
which  fell  from  the  rich  man's  table : 
moreover  the  dogs  came  and  licked  his 
sores.  ^^And  it  came  to  pass,  that 
the  beggar  died,  and  was  carried  by 
the  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom :  the 
rich  man  also  died,  and  was  buried  ; 

^^  And  in  hell  he  lift  up  his  eyes, 
being  in  torments,  and  seeing  Abra- 
ham afar  off,  and  Lazarus  in  his  bo- 
som. **  And  he  cried  and  said,  Fa- 
ther Abraham,  have  mercy  on  me, 
and  send  Lazarus,  that  he  may  dip 
the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water,  and 
cool  my  tongue ;  for  I  am  tormented 
in  this  flame.  °^  But  Abraham  said, 
Son,  remember  that  thou  in  thy  life- 
time receivedst  thy  good  things,  and 
likewise  Lazarus  evil  things  ;  but  now 
he  is  comforted,  and  thou  art  torment- 
ed. *°  And  beside  all  this,  between  us 
and  you  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed ;  so 
that  they  which  would  pass  from  hence 
to  you  cannot ;  neither  can  they  pass 
to  us,  that  would  come  from  thence. 

'^  Then  he  said,  I  pray  thee  there- 
fore, father,  that  thou  wouldest  send 
him  to  my  father's  house :  '*  For  I 
have  five  brethren ;  that  he  may  tes- 
tify unto  them,  lest  they  also  come 
into  this  place  of  torment.  ''  Abra- 
ham said  unto  him,  They  have  Moses 
and  the  prophets ;  let  them  hear  them. 
'"  And  he  said.  Nay,  father  Abraham ; 
but  if  one  went  unto  them  from  the 
dead,  they  will  repent.  ^'  And  he  said 
unto  him.  If  they  hear  not  Moses  and 
the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be 
persuaded,  though  one  rose  from  the 
dead. 


60       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

In  this  passage  we  observe  several  interesting  differences 
as  well  as  coincidences. 

In  verse  19  we  should  have  hardly  expected  to  have  found 
Comments  on  ^^  Tyndale's  Version  the  Grecized  "  bysse."  In 
the  translation,  "vvicliffe's  Version  the  translation  is  "  whight 
silk,"  and  in  Cranmer's  "  fyne  whyte."  The  more  familiar 
"linen"  appears  to  have  come  in  with  Coverdale.  In  the 
same  verse  "  deliciously"  held  its  ground  in  the  leading  En- 
glish versions  till  the  last  revision.  The  less  accurate  "  lay," 
in  the  following  verse,  was  only  changed  into  the  more  accu- 
rate and  suggestive  "  was  laid"  in  the  Bishops'  Bible.  The 
translation  of  the  here  somewhat  peculiar  aWa  Ka\  {ol  kvvcq 
k.tX.)  is  curiously  varied.  Tyndale  probably  aloner  etains  the 
most  strictly  correct  translation  of  the  d\Xa,  though  he  over- 
looks the  cat.  Coverdale  takes  the  lighter  form  "  but ;"  Cran- 
mer  conveniently  lets  the  adversative  particle  fall  through 
("the  dogges  came  also"),  and  certainly  puts  the  "also"  in 
the  wrong  place.  The  Genevan  Version  falls  back  on  "  yea," 
the  A.V.  adopts  the  general  but  not  exact  "  moreover."* 

*  The  same  inexact  rendering  is  retained  by  Alford,  Auth.  Version  Revised 
(in  loco).  We  can  hardly  doubt,  however,  that  the  words  convey  more  than 
the  mere  addition  of  another  item  to  the  sorrowful  account,  though  it  may  be 
diflBcult  to  catch  the  exact  idea  intended  to  be  conveyed  by  the  adversative 
particle.  Meyer  (Kommentar,  p.  478,  ed.  4),  with  his  usual  accuracy,  observes 
that  the  dWd  must  mark  some  opposition,  the  koi  some  enhancement;  but 
we  shall  find  it  difficult  probably  to  take  his  ^^ew  of  the  passage,  that  the 
dogs  increased  the  beggar's  sufferings — "  Howbeit  (instead  of  being  fed  with 
the  crumbs)  the  dogs  also  came  and  licked  his  sores,  so  increasing  pain"  (die 
unreinen  Thiere,  und  ihr  den  Schmerz  des  Hiilflosen  vermehrendes  Lecken  ! 
Meyer).  De  Wette,  Ewald,  and  others,  following  the  majority  of  the  older 
expositors,  rightly  hold  that  the  dogs  must  be  considered  to  have  shown  a 
sort  of  compassion — which  was  not  shown  to  Lazarus  by  his  fellow-men  ;  but 
they  obliterate  the  force  of  the  dWd.  Bornemann  gives  the  gloss  "  egestate 
ejus  micae  de  divitis  mensa  allatoe  vulneribus  succurrebant  canes,"  but  the 
same  objection  remains.  Can  the  meaning  be  that,  though  Lazarus  desired 
(and  probably  received)  what  really  was  the  portion  of  the  dogs  (see  Matt. 
XV. ,  27),  even  the  dogs  notwithstanding  showed  a  sort  of  pity  ?  Meyer  urges, 
on  the  contrary,  that  the  whole  idea  of  the  narrative  is  the  unrelieved  misery 
of  Lazarus  on  this  side  of  the  grave.  The  exegesis  of  these  simple  words  is 
certainly  difficult. 


LEABISG  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  AUTH.  VERSION.         61 

'  In  verse  22  the  pleasantly  quaint  but  archaic  "  yt  fortuned," 
after  holding  its  ground  in  one  or  two  of  the  older  versions, 
is  conveniently  changed  into  the  more  natural  translation  by 
the  last  revisers,  who  probably  took  it  from  the  Rhemish 
Version,  to  which  it  is  certain  that  they  Avere  from  time  to 
time  indebted,  though  it  was  not  one  of  the  versions  to  which 
they  were  specially  directed  to  refer. 

In  verse  23  the  A.V.  clearly  improves  upon  the  older  ver- 
sion, and  preserves  in  the  simple  participle  the  tragic  force, 
not  to  say  even  the  tone  of  the  retrospective  vTapx(^y,  Avhich 
is  quite  lost  in  the  resolved  "when  he  was  in  torments"  of 
the  Rhemish  Version. 

In  verse  25  Coverdale  adopts,  though  with  an  enfeebled 
order  and  force  of  words,  the  more  literal  "  good"  and  "  evil," 
and  appears  to  have  suggested  the  change  in  A.V.,  all  the 
other  versions  (except  the  Rhemish)  having  followed  Tyndale. 
The  same  hand  introduced  "tormented"  in  the  same  verse, 
and  passed  it  onward  to  Bishop  Cox  for  the  Bishops'  Bible. 

The  excellent  change  in  the  translation  of  xaff^ua  (verse  26) 
is  due  apparently  to  the  Genevan  Version,  and  is  followed  by 
the  Bishops';  the  scarcely  less  important  "fixed,"  immedi- 
ately afterward,  appears  for  the  first  time  in  the  Rhemish* 
Version,  and  is  iidopted  by  our  own  revisers.  In  the  last 
verso  the  improved  translation  of  ireiirOnrroi'Tai  is  due  to  A.V., 
all  the  other  versions  without  exception  having  here  followed 
the  earlier  translation. 

The  second  passage  we  have  chosen  is  of  a  more  technical 
Second  pnssagc,   character,  and  useful  for  showing  the  amount  of 

Acts  xxvii.,  27-  .  ,  .  , 

44.  connection  between  the  two  versions  where  more 

verbal  change  might  naturally  be  expected.     The  portion 

*  We  can  hardly  equally  commend  the  rendering  of  x«<''A'°'  adopted  by  this 
version — "  a  great  chaos."  The  correct  translation  of  the  sad  and  monitory 
i<TTr}QiKTai  is  found  also  in  AVicliffe  ("  stablished"),  and  is  due  obviously  to  the 
"firmatum  est"  of  the  Vulgate.  It  may  be  remarked,  in  passing,  that  the 
idea  of  a  vast  chaitm  separating  the  abodes  of  the  evil  and  the  good  is  not  a 
Jewish  idea.  Compare  Lightfoot  in  loco,  and  Eisenmenger,  Entdeckt.  Juden- 
thuin,\o\.  ii.,  p.  314. 


62 


ELLICOTT  ON  EEVIHION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


chosen  is  the  concluding  part 
xxvii.j  27-44. 

Ttndale. 

^'  But  when  the  fourtenthe  nyght 
was  come,  as  we  were  caryed  in  Adria 
about  mydnyght,  the  shipmen  demed 
that  ther  appered  some  countre  vnto 
them,  "*  &  sounded,  &  founde  it  xx 
feddoms.  And  when  they  had  gone 
a  lytell  further  they  sounded  agayne 
&  founde  xv  feddoms.  "  Then  fear- 
inge  lest  they  shuld  have  fallen  on 
some  Roche,  they  cast  iiii  ancres  out 
of  the  Sterne  &  wysshed  for  the  daye. 
^^  As  the  shipmen  were  about  to  flee 
out  of  the  ship  &  had  let  doune  the 
bote  into  the  see  vnder  a  coloure  as 
tho  they  wolde  have  cast  ancres  out 
of  the  forshippe  :  ^'  Paul  sayd  unto 
the  under  captayne  &  the  soudiers  ex- 
cepte  these  abyde  in  the  ship  ye  can- 
not be  safe.  ^^  Then  the  soudiers  cut 
of  the  rope  of  the  bote  &  let  it  fall 
awaye. 

^^  And  in  the  meane  tyme  betwixt 
that  &  daye  Paul  besought  them  all 
to  take  meate,  sayinge :  this  is  the 
fourtenthe  daye  that  ye  have  taried  & 
continued  fastynge  receavinge  noth- 
inge  at  all.  ^*  Wherfore  I  praye  you 
to  take  meate :  for  this  is  no  dout  is 
for  youre  helth :  for  ther  shall  not  a 
heere  fall  from  the  heed  of  eny  of  you. 
^^  And  when  he  had  thus  spoken,  he 
toke  breed  &  gave  thankes  to  God  in 
presence  of  them  all  &  brake  it  &  be- 
ganne  to  eate.  '^  Then  were  they  all 
of  good  cheare,  &  they  also  toke  meate. 
"  We  were  all  together  in  the  ship,  two 
hundred  3  score  and  sixtene  soules. 
^^  And  when  they  had  eaten  ynough 
they  lightened  the  ship  &  cast  out  the 
wheate  into  the  see. 

^'  When  yt  was  daye  they  knew  not 
the  lande  but  they  spied  a  certayne 
haven  with  a  banke,  into  the  which 


of  St.  Paul's  shipwreck,  Acts 


AuTH.  Version. 

^'  But  when  the  fourteenth  night 
was  come,  as  we  were  driven  up  and 
down  in  Adria,  about  midnight  the 
shipmen  deemed  that  they  drew  near 
to  some  country ;  ^*  And  sounded, 
and  found  it  twenty  fathoms  :  and 
when  they  had  gone  a  little  further, 
they  sounded  again,  and  found  it  fif- 
teen fathoms.  ^^  Then  fearing  lest  we 
should  have  fallen  upon  rocks,  they 
cast  four  anchors  out  of  the  stern,  and 
wished  for  the  day.  ^^  And  as  the 
shipmen  were  about  to  flee  out  of  the 
ship,  when  they  had  let  dow- n  the  boat 
into  the  sea,  under  colour  as  though 
they  would  have  cast  anchors  out  of 
the  foreship,  ^'  Paid  said  to  the  centu- 
rion and  to  the  soldiers.  Except  these 
abide  in  the  ship,  ye  can  not  be  saved. 
^^  Then  the  soldiers  cut  oflF  the  ropes 
of  the  boat,  and  let  her  fall  oft". 

°^  And  while  the  day  was  coming 
on,  Paul  besought  tliem  all  to  take 
meat,  saying,  This  day  is  tlie  four- 
teenth day  that  ye  have  tarried  and 
continued  fasting,  having  taken  noth- 
ing. =*  Wherefore  I  pray  you  to  take 
some  meat ;  for  this  is  for  your  health  ; 
for  there  shall  not  an  hair  fall  from 
the  head  of  any  of  you.  ^*  And  when 
he  had  thus  spoken,  he  took  bread, 
and  gave  thanks  to  God  in  jjresence 
of  them  all ;  and  when  he  had  broken 
it,  he  began  to  eat.  ^^  Then  were  they 
all  of  good  cheer,  and  they  also  took 
some  meat.  ^'  And  we  were  in  all  in 
the  ship  two  hundred  threescore  and 
sixteen  souls.  ^^  And  when  they  had 
eaten  enough,  they  lightened  the  ship, 
and  cast  out  the  wheat  into  the  sea. 

^'  And  when  it  was  day,  they  knew 
not  the  land ;  but  they  discovered  a 
certain  creek  with  a  shore,  into  the 


LEADING  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  AUTH.  VERSION. 


63 


Tyndale. 

they  were  mynded  (yf  yt  Avere  pos- 
sible) to  thi-iist  in  the  ship.  *'*And 
when  they  had  taken  up  the  ancres, 
they  commytted  them  selves  unto  the 
see,  &  lowsed  the  rudder  bondes  & 
hoysed  up  the  mayne  sayle  to  the 
wyude  &  drue  to  londe.  *'  But  they 
chaunsed  on  a  place,  which  had  the 
see  ou  bothe  the  sydes,  &  thrust  in  the 
ship.  And  the  foore  part  stucke  fast 
&  moved  not,  but  the  hynder  brake 
with  the  violence  of  the  waves. 

*-  The  soudears  counsell  was  to  kyll 
the  presoners  lest  eny  of  them,  when 
he  had  swome  out  shulde  fle  awaye. 
"  Kut  the  under  coptayne  willinge  to 
save  Paul  kept  them  from  their  pm- 
pose,  &  commanded  that  they  that 
could  swyme  shulde  cast  them  selves 
first  in  to  the  see  &  scape  to  londe. 
*'  And  the  other  he  commanded  to 
goo  some  on  hordes  &  some  on  broken 
peces  of  the  ship.  And  so  it  came  to 
passe  that  they  come  all  safe  to  londe. 


Adth.  Veksiox. 

which  they  were  minded,  if  it  were 
possible,  to  thrast  in  the  ship.  *"  And 
when  they  had  taken  up  the  anchors, 
they  committed  themselues  unto  the 
sea,  and  loosed  the  rudder  bands,  and 
hoised  up  the  mainsail  to  the  wind, 
and  made  toward  shore.  *'  And  fall- 
ing into  a  place  where  two  seas  met, 
they  ran  the  ship  aground ;  and  the 
forepart  stuck  fast,  and  remained  un- 
moveable,  but  the  hinder  part  was 
broken  with  the  violence  of  the  waves. 
*^  And  the  soldiers'  counsel  was  to 
kill  the  prisoners,  lest  any  of  them 
should  swim  out,  and  escape.  *^  But 
the  centurion,  willing  to  save  Paul, 
kept  them  from  their  purpose ;  and 
commanded  that  they  which  could 
swim  should  cast  themselves  fii'st  into 
the  sea,  and  get  to  land  :  **  And  the 
rest,  some  on  boards,  and  some  on 
broken  pieces  of  the  ship.  And  so  it 
came  to  pass,  that  they  escaped  all 
safe  to  land. 


We  may  here  again  shortly  notice  a  few  of  the  changes. 
In  verse  27  our  own  version  apparently  has  the  credit  of 
Comments  on  the  more  viflcorous  translation  of  ciacbEoouiyojVj  the 

some  of  the  ."^  «  n        •         m       t    i 

chauges.  Other  vcrsions  either  followmg  lyndale  or  the 
very  feeble  "  as  we  were  sayling"  of  Cranmer.  Some  good 
examples  of  the  true  force  and  meaning  of  the  word  will  be 
found  in  that  excellent  repertory  of  illustration,  the  notes  of 
Wetstein. 

In  verse  28,  Coverdale  is  apparently  the  only  translator 
who  has  ventured  on  the  longer  and  perhaps  more  profes- 
sional "  cast  out  the  lead"  ("kesten  down  a  plomet,"  Wicl.) : 
the  rest  all  adopt  the  shorter  and  simpler  form. 

In  verse  29,  the  Genevan  Version  is  the  first  to  be  a  little 
more  literal  in  the  translation  of  rpaxelQ  ronovg  ("  rough 
places"),  though  in  the  A.  V.  the  change  to  the  plural  at  once 
shows  the  close  care  of  the  revisers,  and  presents  a  very  fair- 
ly approximate  rendeiing. 


64        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

In  verse  30  we  may  congi'atulate  ourselves  ou  having  es- 
caped the  "  mariners"  of  the  Genevan  Version — the  only  ver- 
sion that  has  committed  itself  to  this  som.ewhat  vapid  word. 
The  professional  change  of  gender  in  verse  32  is  found  only 
in  A.V.  It  might  have  been  useful  in  Tyndale's  rendering, 
to  mark  that  it  Avas  not  the  rope,  but  the  boat  that  fell  away : 
it  is  apparently  unnecessary  in  the  A.V. 

In  the  first  words  of  verse  33,  our  version  is  very  happy  in 
the  delicate  change  from  "  when"  ("  when  the  daye  beganne 
to  aj^pear,"  Cran.,Bish. ;  comp.  Cov.)  to  "  while,"  just  giving 
the  required  shade  of  meaning  so  as  to  be  true  to  the  orig- 
inal. Nothing  shows  more  clearly  than  these  slight  touches 
the  thorough  care  and  faithfulness  with  which  the  last  re- 
visers executed  their  work. 

In  verse  35  the  resolved  translation  of  the  participle,"  when 
he  had  broken  it,"  in  the  A.  V.,  and  derived  probably  from 
Cranraer,  is  scarcely  an  improvement  on  the  more  idiomatic 
and  equally  accurate  "  and  [he]  brake  it  and  beganne  to  eate" 
of  the  older  version.  No  clauses  are  more  diificult  to  trans- 
late with  ease  and  vigor  than  the  participle  clauses  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  especially  in  St.  Luke.  The  varied  re- 
lations of  time,  manner,  and  circumstance  Avill  sometimes  all 
be  found  involved  in  a  group  of  participles  round  one  soli- 
tary finite  verb,  to  exhibit  which  in  a  faithfjil,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  easy  translation,  is  commonly  very  difficult.  Here 
it  seems  natural  to  mark  by  a  resolved  translation  the  action 
that  followed  the  words,  but  it  scarcely  seems  necessary  to 
mark  in  the  same  way  the  priority  of  the  breaking  of  the 
bread  to  the  eating  of  it.  But,  after  all,  these  are  matters  in 
which  individual  judgments  will  necessarily  greatly  vary. 

In  the  next  verse  but  one  a  slight  difierence  occurs  in  the 
first  words  which  also  opens  up  a  subject  of  some  difficulty. 
Tyndale,  it  will  be  observed,  with  all  the  other  early  versions 
excejit  the  Bishops',  prefixes  no  connecting  particle  to  the 
first  words  of  verse  37.  In  the  original  the  particle  is  U.  Is 
this  a  case  where  the  slight  chancce  of  thought  involved  in 


LEADING  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  AUTH.  VERSION.  65 

this  delicate  use  of  the  particle,  and  the  transition  from  the 
acts  of  the  gathered  shipmen  to  the  fact  of  their  number,  is 
really  best  expressed  in  English  by  the  omission  of  any  con- 
necting particle,  or  is  it  a  case  where  some  English  particle 
seems  needed?  Here  again  judgments  will  greatly  var3^ 
To  the  majority  probably  it  would  seem  that  a  particle  is 
needed,  but  that  majority  would  be  greatly  divided  whether 
the  exact  shade  of  thought  was  best  conveyed  by  the  loosely 
connecting  "  and,"  or  the  half-parenthetic  and  mainly  transi- 
tional "now."  The  same  question  recurs  in  verse  39,  at  the 
beginning  of  which  Tyndale  and  the  versions  prior  to  the 
Bishops'  Bible  leave  the  connecting  particle  untranslated. 
These  are  niceties  of  translation  to  which  it  may  not  be  un- 
desirable in  passing  to  direct  the  general  reader's  attention. 

In  the  last  words  of  verse  40  the  A.  V.  is  a  slight  imj)rove- 
ment  on  the  earlier  version,  but  both  fail  in  marking  that  it 
was  the  particular  shore,  or  rather  beach,  which  they  had  al- 
ready observed.*  The  Rhemish  Version  has  inserted  the  ai*- 
ticle.  The  translation  in  the  A.  V.  of  KaTE~.-)(ov  is  admirable. 
All  the  other  versions  (except  Rhem.,"they  went  on  to- 
ward") retain  the  less  expressive  rendering  of  Tyndale.  Here 
again  we  have  another  instance  of  the  watchfulness  and  care 
of  the  last  revisers. 

In  the  next  verse  (verse  41)  the  change  in  regard  to  ct0o- 
XarrcToc  is  not  equally  for  the  better.     It  tends  rather  to  con- 

*  In  this  verse  the  modern  reviser  wotild  almost  certainly  introduce  a 
change  in  the  translation  of  apr'tfiixyv.  The  most  probable  rendering  would 
seem  to  be  "  foresail, "  but  the  objection  is  that  St.  Luke  in  that  case  would 
have  been  more  likely  to  have  used  the  technical  word  ^o\wa/.  See,  however, 
the  elaborate  arguments  in  the  excellent  dissertation  "On  the  Ships  of  the 
Ancients"  in  Smith,  Fbya^e  and  Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul.  The  same  objec- 
tion is  urged  against  the  supposition  that  it  was  some  hinder  (mizen)  sail, 
there  being  a  technical  term,  though  perhaps  not  so  well  known  as  coXidv, 
viz.,  iTridpo/xog.  Meyer  notices  that  this  sail  in  Italian  is  known  by  the  tech- 
nical name  "artimone,"  but  himself  refers  the  term  to  some  upper  sail 
("  Braamsegel,"  topsail)  attached  to  the  presumably  yet  standing  mast.  See 
Kommentar  zur  Apostelgesch.,  p.  455  (ed.  2),  and  the  good  notes  on  the  whole 
passage. 


66 


ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


fuse  what  St.  Luke  appears  to  specify,  that  the  vessel  was 
run  on  to  a  tongue  of  land  lying  below  the  surface,  and  con- 
nected with  the  shore  by  an  isthmus,  Avith  some  little  depth 
of  water  on  it ;  hence  the  circumstances  of  verse  43  seq.  The 
slight  but  necessary  change  in  the  translation  of  iXvero  was 
taken  from  the  Rhemish  Version.  To  the  same  version  is  due 
the  credit  of  marking  in  verse  43  that  it  is  there  the  simpler 
i'^iivai  ("  goe  forth  to  land"),  not  as  afterward  diaffwdiivai.  The 
A.  v.,  however,  having  taken  the  hint,  imjiroves  upon  it. 

In  the  last  verse,  the  insertion  by  Tyndale  of  the  former 
verb  makes  the  sense  clearer ;  Coverdale  was  the  first  to  omit 
it,  and  is  followed  by  the  Bishoj^s'  Bible  and  our  own  ver- 
sion. At  any  rate,  we  can  hardly  here  take  a  hint  from  the 
Rhemish — "  and  the  rest,  some  thei/  caried  on  bordes."  Such 
a  proceeding  would  certainly  have  been  a  little  difficult  in 
such  a  locality,  and  with  some  depth  of  water  on  the  isthmus. 

The  third  passage  which  we  may  select  is  a  very  difierent 
Third  passage,  ^"^3  ^^^^  ^^  ^^^^  Unsuitable  for  testing  the  connec- 
2The8s.,ciiap.ii.  tion  between  the  versions.  We  take  the  second 
chapter  of  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  in  which 
the  apostle  specifies  the  signs  and  coming  of  Antichrist. 
Tyndale. 

2.  We  beseche  you  brethren  by  the 
commynge  of  oure  lorde  Jesu  Christ, 
and  in  that  we  shall  assemble  vnto 
him,  ^  that  ye  be  not  sodenly  moved 
from  youre  mynde,  and  be  not  troub- 
led, nether  by  sprete,  nether  by  wordes, 
nor  yet  by  letter  which  sliuld  seme  to 


AuTH.  Version. 

2.  Now  we  beseech  you,  brethren, 
by  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  bi/  our  gathering  together 
unto  him,  *  That  ye  be  not  soon, 
shaken  in  mind,  or  be  troubled,  nei- 
ther by  spirit,  nor  by  word,  nor  by  let- 
ter as  from  us,  as  that  the  day  of 


come  from  vs,  as  the  daye  of  Christ    Christ  is  at  hand.     ^  Let  no  man  de- 


were  at  honde.  ^  Let  no  man  deceave 
you  by  eny  meanes,  for  the  lorde  com- 
meth  not,  excepte  there  come  a  de- 
partynge  fyrst,  and  that  that  synfuU 
man  be  opened,  the  sonne  of  perdicion 
*  which  is  an  adversarie,  and  is  exalt- 
ed above  all  that  is  called  god,  or  that 
is  worshipped  :  so  that  he  shall  sitt  as 
God  in  temple  of  god,  and  shew  him 
silfe  as  god. 


ceive  you  by  any  means ;  for  that  day 
shall  not  come,  except  there  come  a 
falling  away  first,  and  that  man  of 
sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition ; 
*  Who  opposeth  and  exalteth  himself 
above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  that  is 
worshipped  ;  so  that  he  as  God  sitteth 
in  the  temple  of  God,  showing  him- 
self that  he  is  God. 


LEADING  CHARACTEEISTICS  OF  AUTH.  VERSION. 


67 


Tyndale. 

*  Remember  ye  not,  that  when  I 
was  yet  with  you,  I  tolde  you  these 
thynges  ?  *  And  nowe  ye  knowe  what 
with  holdeth  :  even  that  he  myght  be 
vttered  at  his  tyme.  '  For  the  mis- 
tery  of  that  iniquitie  doeth  he  all 
readie  worke  which  onlie  loketh,  vn- 
till  it  be  taken  out  of  the  waye.  ®  And 
then  sliall  that  wicked  be  vttered, 
whom  the  lorde  shall  consume  with 
the  sprete  of  his  mouth,  and  shall  de- 
stroye  with  the  apearaunce  of  his  com- 
mynge,  ^  even  him  whose  commynge 
is  by  the  workynge  of  Satan,  with  all 
lyinge  power,  signes  and  wonders : 
'"  and  in  all  deceavablenes  of  vnright- 
ewesnes,  amonge  them  that  peiysshe  : 
because  they  receaved  not  the  (love) 
of  the  truth,  that  thay  myght  have 
bene  saved.  "  And  therfore  god  shall 
sende  them  stronge  delusion,  that  they 
shuld  beleve  lyes :  '-  that  all  they 
might  be  damned  which  beleved  not 
the  trueth  but  had  pleasure  in  vnright- 
ewesnes. 

"But  we  arebounde  to  geve  thankes 
alwaye  to  god  for  you  brethren  be- 
loved of  the  lorde,  for  because  that 
God  hath  from  the  begynnynge  chosen 
you  to  salvacion,  thorow  santifyinge 
of  the  sprete,  and  thorowe  belevynge 
the  trueth :  "  wherunto  he  called 
you  by  oure  gospell,  to  obtayne  the 
glorye  that  commeth  of  oure  lorde 
Jesu  Christ. 

'*  Therfore  brethren  stonde  fast 
and  kepe  the  ordinannces  which  ye 
have  learned :  whether  it  were  by  our 
preachynge,  or  by  pistle.  '  ^  Oure  lorde 
Jesu  Christ  hymsilfe,  and  God  oure 
father  which  hath  loved  us  and  hath 
geven  us  everlastynge  consolacion  and 
good  hope  thorowe  grace,  * '  comforte 
youre  hertes,  and  stablysshe  you  in  all 
doctrine  and  good  doynge. 


AuTH.  Version. 
^  Eemember  ye  not,  that,  when  I 
was  yet  with  you,  I  told  you  these 
things?  ^  And  now  ye  know  what 
withholdeth,  that  he  might  be  reveal- 
ed in  his  time.  '  Por  the  mystery  of 
iniquity  doth  already  work :  only  he 
who  now  letteth  will  let,  until  he  be 
taken  out  of  the  way.  ®  And  then 
shall  that  Wicked  be  revealed,  whom 
the  Lord  shall  consume  with  the  spirit 
of  his  mouth,  and  shall  destroy  with 
the  brightness  of  his  coming  :  '  Even 
him,  whose  coming  is  after  the  work- 
ing of  Satan  with  all  power,  and  signs, 
and  lying  wonders,  "And  with  all 
deceivableness  of  unrighteousness  in 
them  that  perish ;  because  they  re- 
ceived not  the  love  of  the  truth,  that 
they  might  be  saved.  * '  And  for  this 
cause  God  shall  send  them  strong  de- 
lusion, that  they  should  believe  a  lie  : 
"  That  they  all  might  be  damned  who 
believed  not  the  truth,  but  had  pleas- 
ure in  unrighteousness. 

"  But  we  are  bound  to  give  thanks 
alway  to  God  for  you,  brethren,  be- 
loved of  the  Lord,  because  God  hath 
from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  sal- 
vation through  sanctification  of  the 
Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth :  *  *Where- 
unto  he  called  you  by  our  Gospel,  to 
the  obtaining  of  the  glory  of  om*  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 

"Therefore,  brethren,  stand  fast, 
and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have 
been  taught,  whether  by  word,  or  our 
epistle.  '  ^  No w  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
himself,  and  God,  even  our  Father, 
which  hath  loved  us,  and  hath  given 
tts  everlasting  consolation  and  good 
hope  through  grace,  ' '  Comfort  your 
hearts,  and  stablish  you  in  every  good 
word  and  work. 


68        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

In  the  first  verse  the  A.  V.  adopts  and  improves  upon  the 

Comments,  translation  of  the  Bishops'  Bible,  "  our  assem- 
bling unto  him,"  and  so  rightly  avoids  a  very  awkward  peri- 
phrasis. 

In  the  second  verse  the  older  version  is  certainly  the 
more  accurate  in  its  translation  of  otto  tov  j'oog  ("from  youre 
mynde"),  but  in  what  follows  it  is  much  improved  upon,  both 
in  the  Bishops'  and  the  A.  V. 

The  change  in  verse  3  to  "  falling  away"  is  due  to  the  Bish- 
o23s',  and  is  a  clear  imjDrovementjbut  the  definite  article  ought 
not  to  have  been  overlooked ;  it  was  the  definite  falling  away 
which  was  to  precede  the  coming.  In  the  conclusion  of  the 
verse  we  owe  the  vigorous  translation, "  the  man  of  sin,"  to 
the  usually  smoother  Coverdale.  The  reading,  it  may  be  ob- 
served, is  somewhat  doubtful,  as  the  two  most  ancient  manu- 
scripts (the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic)  read  avofiiaq.  This,  how- 
ever, would  not  affect  the  principle  of  the  translation,  but 
only  the  change  from  "  sin"  to  "  lawlessness." 

In  verse  4  there  are  some  small  changes,  and  all  for  the 
better,  part  due  to  Bishops',  part  to  the  A.  V. 

In  verse  V  we  find  that  Tyndale  and  most  of  the  earlier 
versions  were  induced  to  emphasize  the  article  r>7c  avofxiac: 
it  need  scarcely  be  said  that  it  appears  only  on  that  well- 
known  principle  that  if,  of  two  nouns  in  regimen,  the  first  has 
the  article,  the  second  will  also  have  it  Avithout  being  thereby 
made  peculiarly  definite.  In  the  latter  portion  of  the  verse, 
the  Genevan  Version  has  the  merit  of  having  first  brought 
out  the  correct  meaning. 

In  verse  8  the  translation  of  Bishops'  followed  by  A.  V.  is 
perhaps  questionable.  It  is  doubtful  whether  any  thing  more 
is  meant  than  that  "  manifestation"  and  final  "  appearance" 
of  the  Lord,  which  seems  always  specially  marked  by  the 
word  tTKpaveia. 

In  verse  9  it  may  also  be  doubted  whether,  in  point  of  ac- 
tual structure,  Tyndale  is  not  right,  and  whether  the  gen. 
lijEvlovQ  is  not  to  be  associated  with  all  the  three  substantives. 


LEADIXO  CHABACTERISTICS  OF  AUTM.  VERSION.  (59 

not,  as  in  A. V.,  only  with  the  last  one:  "power,"  "signs," 
and  "  wonders"  were  all  marked  by  the  same  principle. 

In  verse  11a  change  is  made  from  the  plural  "lies"  to  the 
singular,  but  all  the  versions  alike  omit  the  article.  In  the 
next  verse  two  very  small  changes  appear,  both,  however, 
serving  to  exhibit  that  incessant  care  which,  as  we  have  al- 
ready seen,  so  marks  the  Authorized  Version ;  the  earlier  ver- 
sions preserving  Tyndale's  words  as  they  stand. 

The  same  remark  applies  to  verse  13,  where  there  are  also 
two  or  three  small  changes,  one,  however,  of  which  is  of  some 
little  importance,  viz.,  the  omission  in  the  A.  V.  of  the  prepo- 
sition ("  thorowe")  in  accordance  with  the  Greek.  This  ex- 
actness is  unfortunately  not  always  observed  in  our  version, 
but  in  any  future  revision  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  it  would  be 
systematically  maintained;  several  passages  being  affected 
by  the  principle  even  in  their  doctrinal  aspects.*  It  is  a 
matter  of  common  sense  that  if  the  two  substantives  have 
only  one  preposition,  the  writer  instinctively  regards  the  sub- 
jects or  ideas  expressed  by  the  two  substantives  as  so  far  al- 
lied that  they  may  suitably  stand  under  the  vinculum  of  the 
single  preposition. 

The  next  verse  (verse  14)  presents  an  interesting  differ- 

*  We  may  take  a  single  but  important  instance.  In  John  iii.,  5,  the  words 
tdv  fAT)  Tig  yevvt]9y  t^  vSaroQ  Kai  UvivixaTog  are  translated,  pot  only  in  the 
A. v.,  but  in  all  the  versions,  "Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit" — the  preposition  being  inserted  before  the  second  substantive,  though 
not  so  inserted  in  the  Greek.  Now  it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  when  we  come 
closely  to  reason  on  the  passage,  that  this  insertion  of  the  preposition  tends 
to  refer  the  ytwrfffic  to  two  media  or  mediating  agencies  which  need  not  by 
any  means  be  regarded  as  combined.  This,  however,  the  Greek  does  not  im- 
ply. Nay,  the  very  absence  of  the  preposition,  when  it  might  have  been  so 
easily  inserted,  suggests  the  contrary  deduction — the  rule  of  Winer  being  un- 
doubtedly correct,  that  the  preposition  "is  repeated  when  the  nouns  denote 
objects  which  are  to  be  taken  by  themselves  as  independent,  and  not  repeated 
when  they  reduce  themselves  to  a  single  main  idea,  or  (if  they  are  proper 
names)  to  one  common  class:"  contrast  Luke  xxiv.,  27;  John  xx.,  2  (on 
which  Bengel  bases  an  actual  deduction — "non  una  fuisse  utrumque  disci- 
pulum"),  and  1  Thess.  i.,  5,  with  John  iv.,  23,  Luke  xxi.,  26,  and  the  present 
passage.  See,  on  this  subject,  Winer,  Grammar  of  the  N.T.,^  50,  p.  522  (ed. 
Moultou),  and  the  ample  list  of  examples  there  specified. 


VO        ELLICOTT  ON  EEVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

ence.  Here  Tyndale  gives  a  direct  interpretation :  he  re- 
gards the  genitive  tov  Kvpiov  k.t.X.  as  a  genitive  of  the  source, 
and  marks  it  distinctly  in  translation.  In  this  view  he  is 
followed  by  Tavernei',  and,  as  far  as  we  remember,  Taverner 
alone.  Coverdale's  and  all  the  remaining  versions  adopt  the 
simple  translation,  and  so  rightly  avoid  interpretation.  Christ 
is  here  obviously  represented,  in  harmony  with  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  passage,  and,  indeed,  the  analogy  of  Scripture, 
as  \X\Q  possessor  of  the  glory  rather  than  the  source  of  it.* 

The  beginning  of  verse  15  brings  out  a  polemical  differ- 
ence. The  A.  v.,  with  really  considei'able  boldness,  here  fol- 
lows the  Rhemish  Version  in  opposition  to  all  the  earlier  ver- 
sions, and  gives  to  xapacdorfte  its  not  unusual  sense  of  "  tradi- 
tions." Exegetical  considerations,  however,  make  it  very 
doubtful  whether  the  Genevan  "  instructions"  is  not  more  in 
coincidence  Avith  the  general  tenor  of  the  passage  and  Epis- 
tle. 

"We  may  close  the  comparison  of  the  two  versions  by  no- 
ticing one  important  form  of  words,  6  Qioc,  rat  7rar»)jO  )/juwv, 
which,  as  it  will  be  observed,  is  differently  translated  in  the 
two  versions,  Tyndale  dropping  the  Kai  in  translation,  the  A. 
v.,  on  the  contrary,  rather  giving  it  emphasis.  There  is  yet 
a  third  translation  possible,  which  we  first  find  in  the  Bish- 
ops' Bible — "  God  and  our  Father ;"  which  of  these  is  to  be 
preferred?    Perhaps  the  last,  as  implying  that  we  regai-d 

*  There  is  no  case  to  which  more  attention  ought  to  be  given  in  the  N.  T. 
than  to  the  genitive.  There  are  at  least  five  or  six  different  uses  which  should 
be  carefully  studied,  as  doctrinal  deductions  of  considerable  importance  will 
be  often  found  to  depend  on  the  view  taken.  We  have,  for  instance,  a  gen. 
of  possession  as  here ;  of  origin  (Col.  ii.,  8) ;  of  originating  cause  (Col.  i.,  23 ; 
1  Thess.  i.,  G) ;  of  characterizing  quality  (Gal.  v.,  1)  ;  of  material  (Phil,  iii., 
21) ;  of  contents  (1  Thess.  ii.,  5)  ;  of  opposition  (Eph.  vi.,  14)  ;  of  point  of 
view  (Phil.ii.,  30) ;  and  the  general  divisions  of  the  gen.  subjecti  and  ohjecti, 
the  due  distinction  between  which  always  tests  the  accuracy  of  thought  and 
perspicacity  of  the  interpreter.  The  reader  who  desires  to  pursue  this  sub- 
ject will  find  in  the  notes  on  the  above  passages  in  the  Commentaries  of  the 
writer  of  this  note  further  references  and  comments.  In  the  otherwise  ex- 
cellent Grammar  of  Winer  the  cases  (and  especially  the  gen.)  are  not  treated 
with  the  clearness  which  marks  other  parts  of  the  work. 


LEADING  CHAEACTEBIHTICS  OF  AUTH.  VEESIOX.  ^i 

the  holy  words  "  God  and  Father"*  as  a  solemn  title  in  which 
Godhood  and  Fatherhood  were  simultaneously  recognized  in 
the  devout  mind  of  the  believer.  The  A.  V.  is  very  incon- 
stant in  its  translation  of  these  words,  and  would  have  here 
to  be  watched  closely  in  any  new  revision.  The  passage  con- 
cludes with  a  clearly  necessary  correction  on  the  part  of  the 
A,  Y., "  good  word  and  work,"  though  in  this  our  version  was 
only  following,  as  to  the  position  of  the  epithet,  the  earlier 
versions  of  Cranmer  and  of  the  Bishops. 

After  the  above  comparisons  really  little  remains  to  be 
said,  such  passages  as  have  just  been  chosen  serving  to  bring 
out  practically  the  actual  facts  of  the  case.  In  the  first  place, 
we  see  clearly  that  our  own  version  is  and  remains  substan- 
tially that  of  Tyndale.  All  that  makes  it  what  it  essentially 
is,  its  language,  tone,  rhythm,  vigor,  and  breadth,  ai'e  due  to 
this  first  devoted  translator  from  the  original.  At  the  same 
time,  and  in  the  second  place,  we  have  observed  manifold 
small  changes,  their  number  greatly  increasing  as  the  difii- 
culties  of  the  passage  increase,  or  as  we  pass  from  narrative 
to  argument.  How  and  whence  these  changes  came  in  is  the 
only  question  that  remains  to  be  answered.  This  may  be 
done  shortly,  and  without  entering  far  into  the  province  of 
the  history  of  the  English  Bible. 

Even  from  the  passing  comments  that  have  been  made,  it 
coverdaie'sver-  would  have  bccome  clear  to  the  general  reader 
®^°°*  that  each  succeeding  version  contributed  some- 

thing by  way  of  correction  and  change  to  the  labors  of  Tyn- 
dale. Much  is  due  to  Coverdale,  who  of  late,  we  think,  has 
been  unduly  depreciated.  It  may  be  that  he  was  a  second- 
rate  man  compared  with  Tyndale ;  it  may  be,  too,  that  his 

*  On  this  solemn  form  of  words  see  the  notes  on  Gal,  i.,  5,  where  the  sub- 
ject is  somewhat  fully  discussed.  Whichever  view  be  taken,  there  certainly 
ought  to  be  uniformity  in  translation.  This  formula,  as  translated  in  the  A. 
V. ,  supplies  one  of  the  many  proofs  of  the  undesirableness  of  the  arrangement 
of  different  companies  of  translators  or  revisers  for  different  portions  of  Scrip- 
ture. All  portions  of  the  N.  T.  ought  to  be  gone  over  together  by  the  same 
body  of  revisers. 


72        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

knowledge  of  the  original  languages  was  at  first  very  mod- 
erate ;  it  may  be,  also,  that  he  was  appointed  to  his  work 
rather  than  inwardly  called  to  it,  as  was  the  case  of  his  friend. 
But  he  certainly  labored  faithfully  and  in  many  respects  suc- 
cessfully. He  was  also  thoroughly  loyal  to  Tyndale;  he  nev- 
er sought  to  supersede  the  early  version,  but  rather  by  the 
aid  of  others  to  supply  such  contributions,  by  w^ay  of  addi- 
tion and  correction,  as  God  enabled  him  to  make  to  a  great 
and  holy  cause.  At  the  same  time,  this  also  seems  clear  that 
Coverdale's  Version  can  hardly  be  considered  iu  the  line  of 
direct  descent  from  Tyndale  to  the  Authorized  Version. 
Though  less  remote  than  Taverner's,  Coverdale's  Version  can 
scarcely  be  considered  as  much  more  than  collaterally  related 
to  our  present  English  Bible.  The  line  was  clearly  continued 
by  Matthew,  or,  to  drop  the  nom  de])lx(,me.,  the  martyr  John 
Rogers.  In  this  edition  we  have  little  more,  in  regard  of  the 
New  Testament^  than  Tyndale's  standard  edition  of  1534,  oc- 
casionally corrected  by  Tyndale's  own  edition  of  1535  and  the 
edition  of  Coverdale  of  the  same  year.  Matthew's  Bible  ap- 
peared in  1537,  and  was  so  far  approved  by  authority  that 
the  circulation  of  it  was  sanctioned  by  the  king.  Thus  won- 
derfully and  mysteriously  was  Tyndale's  dying  prayer  of  a 
few  months  before, "  Lord,  ope  the  King  of  England's  eyes," 
heard  and  answered.  The  work  of  one  martyr,  edited  by  one 
who  afterward  wore  the  same  mystic  crown,  was  the  first  Au- 
thorized Version  of  the  Church  of  England.* 

The  line  is  continued  by  the  Great  Bible,  or  Cranmer's 

*  The  estimate  of  Coverdale's  share  in  the  great  work  of  Bible-translation 
is  extremely  well  stated  in  the  Historical  Account  prefixed  to  Bagster,  Hex- 
apla,  p.  71  seq.  From  this  account  it  would  seem  that  Coverdale  in  no  way 
wished  even  to  seem  to  interfere  with  Tyndale's  labors ;  that  Tyndale's  New 
Testament  was  certainly  one  of  the  authorities  he  used ;  that  his  Bible  was 
permitted  by  the  king  to  be  used ;  ^nd  that  the  king  intended  to  have  foiinal- 
ly  authorized  it,  but  that  the  intention  was  never  actually  carried  out.  It  is 
therefore  hardly  correct  to  call  it,  as  has  been  called  in  a  recent  essay,  "  The 
first  authorized  version."  See  Quarterlij  Review  for  April,  1870,  p.  319. 
This  honor  certainly  belongs  to  Matthew's  Bible.  See  Historical  Account, 
p.  78. 


LEADING  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  AUTH.VERSIOK  73 

Bible,  which  Avas  published  three  years  later.  The  arch- 
The  Great  bishop,  as  we  know  from  Fox's  Manuscript  pre- 
Bibie.  served  by  Stry pe,*  began  the  work  by  taking  "  an 

old  English  translation"  of  the  New  Testament — almost  cer- 
tainly Tyndale's — which  he  divided  into  eight  or  nine  parts, 
and  gave,  copied  out "  at  large  in  a  paper  book,"  to  his  coad- 
jutors. This  recension,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  was  the 
New  Testament  of  the  Great  Bible,  which,  as  inspection  clear- 
ly shows,  was  a  revised  edition  of  Tyndale.  Among  the  arch- 
bishop's coadjutors  were  probably  Tonstall,  Bishop  of  Dur- 
ham, and  Heath,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  who  are  subsequently 
specified  in  the  title-page  of  the  edition  of  1541  as  "overseers 
and  perusers"  of  the  work;  Gardiner,  Bishop  of  Winchester, 
who  appears  to  have  been  the  reviser  of  the  Gospels  of  St. 
Luke  and  St.  John;  Stokesley,  Bishop  of  London,  to  whom 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were  assigned,  and  four  or  five  oth- 
ers. Coverdale  was  very  properly  chosen  as  the  corrector 
of  the  press  and  practical  editor,  but  there  does  not  seem  rea- 
son for  thinking  that  he  had  much,  if,  indeed,  any  thing  to 
do  with  the  actual  work  of  revision.  This  interesting  and 
important  version  maintained  its -ground  during  the  whole 
of  the  remainder  of  Henry's  reign,  and — after  the  short  in- 
terval of  Mary's  reign — during  the  first  ten  yeairs  of  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth,  until  at  length  it  was  superseded  by  the  Bish- 
ops' Bible  in  1568.  It  thus  was  the  Authorized  Version  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  for  nearly  a  generation,  and  still  main- 
tains some  place  in  our  services  (in  the  Prayer-book  version 
of  the  Psalms,  and  in  the  sentences  of  Scripture  in  the  Com- 
munion Service)  unto  this  very  day. 

Our  attention  must  now  be  turned  to  the  Genevan  Version, 

The  Genevan   which,  though  Collaterally  related  to  our  present 

Version.  version,  and  not  in  the  line  of  what  may  be  called 

authorized  descent,  nevertheless  has  been  the  source  from 

which  many  corrections  have  been  introduced.     The  New 

*  See  Strj'pe,  Cranmer,  book  i.,  ch.  \'iii.,  vol.  i.,  p.  48  (Oxford,  1812),  and 
the  full  notice  in  Historical  Account,  p.  80. 

Kk 


74        ELLICOTT  ON  BEVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT.  , 

Testament  was  published  first  under  the  superintendence  of 
William  Whittingham,  afterward  Dean  of  Durham,  in  the 
year  1557,  at  Geneva,  and  afterward,  with  many  alterations, 
in  1560,  when  the  whole  Bible  was  published.  Among  those 
who  took  part  in  the  whole  work  was  the  veteran  Coverdale, 
Thomas  Sampson,  afterward  Dean  of  Christchurch,  Thomas 
Cole,  afterward  Archdeacon  of  Essex,  Christopher  Goodman, 
and  others.  The  work  was  done  well,  though  by  no  means 
without  indications,  in  the  New  Testament  especially,  of  bias 
and  doctrinal  prejudices.  The  greater  part  of  the  changes 
in  the  New  Testament  are  referable  to  the  work  of  a  good 
interpreter,  though  a  rash  and  inexperienced  critic — the  ver- 
sion and  notes  of  Beza ;  but  there  are  throughout  clear  signs 
that  great  care  and  consideration  were  shown  in  the  adop- 
tion of  these  changes,  and  that,  on  the  whole,  the  labor  was 
well  bestowed.  This  version,  as  is  well  known,  was  very  pop- 
ular, and  maintained  its  ground  against  the  Bishops'  Bible, 
and,  for  some  years,  even  against  our  present  version.  It 
was  the  household,  though  not  the  authorized,  version  of  the 
Scriptures  for  fully  two  generations. 

This  version  deserves  our  attention  in  three  respects :  first, 
as  having  introduced  the  use  of  italics  to  supplement  and 
carry  on  the  sense,  and  also,  though  less  happily,  the  separa- 
tion into  verses ;  secondly,  as  showing  some  desire  on  the 
part  of  the  revisers  to  follow  as  critically  correct  a  text  as 
their  limited  knowledge  and  appliances,  and  (it  might  be  add- 
ed) their  deference  to  Beza's  authority,  permitted  them  to 
recognize ;  thirdly,  as  being  the  first  version  which  had  been 
made  in  co-operative  unioji.  All  the  preceding  versions  had 
been  the  work,  either  wholly  or  in  their  separate  parts,  of  in- 
dividuals. In  this  version  we  had  several  earnest  and  com- 
petently learned  men  working  together,  and,  as  might  be  ex- 
pected, finally  producing  a  work  which,  whatever  may  be  its 
faults  and  prejudices,  certainly  presents  an  aspect  of  consid- 
erable unity  and  harmony  in  its  general  execution.  This  is 
a  hint  which  is  not  now  without  its  value  and  significance. 


LEADING  CHARACTERISTICS  OF AUTH.VEMSION.  75 

As  we  have  already  said,  it  stands  only  in  a  collateral  rela- 
tion to  our  own  version,  but  it  has  supplied  a  fairly  large  con- 
tingent of  corrections. 

What  we  have  termed  the  authorized  line  of  descent  was 
The  Biahops'  Continued  by  the  Bishops'  Bible,  from  which  our 
Bible.  Q^jj  version  is  legitimately  derived,  the  general 

and  leading  instruction  being  given  to  the  revisers  of  1611 
to  introduce  "  as  few  alterations  as  may  be"  in  the  then  cur- 
rent version.  On  this  version  a  few  remarks  may  be  made 
as  to  structure  and  general  characteristics. 

It  appears  to  have  been  undertaken  from  two  different  rea- 
sons :  first,  honest  dissatisfaction  with  Cranmer's  Bible  as  ex- 
pressed by  distinguished  scholars,  such  as  Lawrence,  and  men 
of  influence  such  as  Sandys,  then  Bishop  of  Worcester ;  sec- 
ondly, from  the  fear  of  the  rapidly  increasing  influence  and 
circulation  of  the  Genevan  Version.  These  two  causes  in- 
duced Archbishop  Parker  to  call  in  the  aid  of  eight  of  his 
suffragans  and  of  other  learned  men  of  the  day,  and  with 
them  to  bring  out  a  thoroughly  revised  version  based  on  that 
ofCranmer.  The  work  was  completed  in  1568.  Of  the  New 
Testament,  the  Gospels  were  revised  by  Cox,  Bishop  of  Ely, 
the  Romans  by  Guest,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  and  the  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  by  Goodman,  Dean  of  Westmin- 
ster. No  clew  is  afforded  to  the  revisers  of  the  remaining 
books.  The  work  was  done  creditably  though  unequally, 
but  it  nowhere  appears  to  have  been  the  result  of  actual  con- 
ference and  locally  united  labor.  Though  confessedly  show- 
ing a  much  more  thorough  revision  of  existing  materials  than 
seems  to  have  been  the  case  with  its  predecessor,  the  Great 
Bible,  though  Parker's  recension  was  much  more  complete 
than  Cranmer's,  yet  still  it  had  all  the  faults  and  defects 
which  were  almost  necessarily  due  to  its  mode  of  construc- 
tion, and  it  certainly  never  succeeded  in  thoroughly  com- 
manding the  respect  of  scholars  or  in  securing  the  sympathies 
of  the  people.  So  it  maintained  its  position  during  the  forty- 
thi'ce  years  of  its  authorized  existence  more  by  external  au- 


76  ELLICOTT  ON  BEVISION  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

tbority  than  by  any  special  merits  of  its  own.  It  probably 
remained  in  many  churches  several  years  after  the  present 
version,  and,  as  we  know  from  extant  sermons,  still  contin- 
ued in  many  cases  to  be  the  source  of  the  words  of  the  preach- 
er's text,*  but  its  real  hold  on  the  Church  and  the  nation  was 
never  strong,  and  was  soon  finally  loosened  by  the  increased 
recognition  of  the  real  excellence  of  the  present  Authorized 
Version. 

We  have  now  concluded  our  genealogy  of  our  present  ver- 
sion, and  established,  we  hope,  both  the  correctness  of  the 
pedigree  already  specified,  and  this  important  fact — that  our 
English  Testament  of  the  present  day,  after  all  its  changes, 
revisions,  and  remodelings,  is  still  truly  and.  substantially  the 
venerable  version  of  Tyndale  the  Martyr.  God  give  us  wis- 
dom ever  to  conduct  our  consultations  in  reference  to  the  re- 
vision of  such  a  version  with  a  sensitive  remembrance  of  the 
true  source  of  our  present  noble  inheritance.  On  its  pages 
are  the  enduring  traces  of  the  labors  of  a  noble  and  devoted 
life,  and  the  seal  with  w^hich  it  is  sealed  is  the  seal  of  blood. 

We  may  now  turn  to  tlie  second  question  of  the  present 
Principles  of  onr  chapter,  and  consider  shortly  the  principles 
present  version,  ^jji^h  have  been  followed  in  the  construction 
of  our  present  version.  These  have  been  already  in  some 
degree  touched  upon  in  the  preceding  pages,  but  may  now 
be  more  distinctly  specified.  We  wall  first  notice  the  lead- 
ing principles,  and  then  those  general  instructions  that  were 
prescribed  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  work  which  necessarily 
involve  matters  of  detail. 

*  Perhaps  a  stronger  instance  could  hardly  be  selected  than  that  of  the 
texts  to  the  Sennons  of  Bp.  Andrewes,  preached  after  1611,  which  are  taken 
from  the  Bishops'  Bible.  And  yet  Andrewes  was  one  of  the  revisers  of  that 
very  version,  and,  as  chairman  of  the  first  of  the  two  companies  that  sat  at 
Westminster,  and  a  well-known  scholar,  might  naturally  be  supposed  likely 
to  have  adopted  the  new  version,  especially  as  some  of  the  sermons  were 
preached  as  late  as  ten  years  after  its  appearance.  The  slow  progress  of  the 
Auth.  Version,  and  the  difficulties  with  which  it  had  to  contend  in  circula- 
tion, have  been  shortly  noticed  by  Disraeli,  Curiosities  of  Literature  (Series 
2),  vol.  iii.,p.322. 


LEADING  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  AUTH.  I'ERSIOX  77 

The  leading  principles  Avere  thoroughly  sound,  and  in  per- 
Fiist;  division  ^^^ct  harmony  with  the  past  history  of  the  En- 
of  labor.  glish  Version.     These  were,  first,  a  division  of 

labor.  Separate  portions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  were  assign- 
ed to  different  companies  of  scholars,  and  the  work  done  by 
each  company  was  reviewed  by  all  the  other  companies,  and 
finally  passed  under  the  Committee  of  Revision.  As  there 
were  in  all  six  companies,  two  at  Westminster  appointed  by 
the  king  (to  whom  the  credit  of  the  plan  is  justly  due),  two 
at  Oxford  nominated  by  the  University,  and  two  at  Cam- 
bridge similarly  nominated,  and  as  the  numbers  in  each  com- 
pany varied  from  seven  to  ten,  it  has  been  computed  that  no 
paH  of  the  work  would  have  been  examined  less  than  four- 
teen times,  and  some  parts  as  many  as  seventeen.*  With 
this  principle  of  division  of  labor  there  was  thus  combined 
the  principle  of  mutual  revision  of  the  work  done.  Here  we 
observe  a  great  improvement  over  the  plans,  as  far  as  we 
know  them,  which  were  followed  in  the  earlier  revisions.  In 
Cranmer's  and  Parker's  recensions  the  work  was  similarly 
broken  up  into  parts,  but  each  part  was  assigned  merely  to 
an  individual ;  and  no  arrangement  seems  to  have  been  made 
in  either  case  for  any  review  by  the  rest  of  the  w^ork  done 
by  the  individual,  nor  was  there  any  adjustment  by  which 
united  conference  was  provided  for.  If  we  may  institute  a 
rough  comparison  between  the  revisions,  we  may  perhaps 

*  See  Historical  Account  (Bagster),  p.  153.  Though  the  work  was  thus 
done  with  extreme  care  and  subjected  to  repeated  scrutiny,  still  the  system 
of  companies  of  translators  rather  than  of  one  body,  or  rather  two  bodies,  the 
one  for  the  Old  and  the  other  for  the  New  Testament,  each  body  doing  their 
whole  work  in  union,  has  certainh'  left  its  unfavorable  traces  on  our  present 
version.  The  New  Testament  was  divided  between  two  companies — one  of 
eight  persons,  of  which  Dr.  Eavis,  Dean  of  Christchurch,  and  subsequently 
Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  of  London,  was  president,  and  the  other  of  eight 
persons,  over  whom  Dr.  Barlow,  Bishop  of  Rochester  and  subsequently  Bish- 
op of  London,  presided.  The  former  sat  at  Oxford,  and  took  the  Gospels, 
Acts,  and  Revelation  ;  the  latter  took  the  Epistles,  and  sat  at  Westminster. 
Had  these  fifteen  men  sat  regularly  together  at  the  same  place,  the  revision 
of  the  New  Testament  would  have  been  better  in  itself,  and  (what  is  of  im- 
portance) more  evenly  executed. 


78        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

rightly  say  that  the  two  earlier  revisions  (at  any  rate  of  the 
New  Testament)  were  due  chiefly  to  the  action  and  influence 
of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  for  the  time  being,*  and 
that  the  laborers  in  the  work  were  chiefly  bishops ;  that  the 
last  revision  was  due  chiefly  to  the  influence  of  the  sovereign, 
and  that  the  laborers  were  in  the  greater  part  nominated  by 
the  Universities.  The  first  two  revisions  were  thus  archie- 
piscopal  and  episcopal,  the  last  royal  and  academic.  If  there 
is  yet  to  be  another  revision,  it  seems  likely  that  a  third  and 
difierent  agency  will  direct  and  carry  out  the  work  of  the  fu- 
ture, and  that  at  length  the  Convocation  of  the  Church  of  En- 
gland, sustained  by  the  aid  and  sympathies  of  the  nation,  will 
come  forwai'd  as  the  faithful  reviser  of  the  national  version  of 
the  Book  of  Life.  Up  to  the  present  time,  it  must  be  said, 
Convocation  has  failed  in  one  of  its  great  duties  as  a  repre- 
sentative, imperfect  it  may  be,  but  still  a  representative,  of 
the,  local  Church  in  her  holy  ofiice  as  guardian  of  the  archives 
of  the  Truth.  Up  to  the  present  time  Convocation  has  been 
found  wanting;!  in  the  future  there  seems  reason  to  hope 

*  This,  of  course,  is  not  to  be  understood  exclusively,  Cromwell  having  had 
so  great  a  hand  in  the  proceedings  prior  to  the  publication  of  the  Great  Bible. 
From  the  beginning,  however,  it  seems  correct  to  ascribe  to  Cranmer,  espe- 
cially in  reference  to  the  New  Testament,  the  foremost  place  in  the  move- 
ment. The  division  of  work  above  alluded  to  as  marked  out  by  Cranmer, 
and  the  recension  which  appears  to  have  resulted  from  it,  and  which  ultimate- 
ly appears  to  have  formed  the  New  Testament  of  the  Great  Bible,  seem  to 
justify  the  reference,  at  any  rate  of  the  N.  T.,  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury.    See  th&  Printed  Account  (Bagster),  p.  83. 

t  Convocation  has  more  than  once  moved  in  the  subject,  but  never  with 
heartiness  or  success.  Its  first  indication  of  movement  was  in  that  very  crit- 
ical period  in  the  history  of  the  English  Bible  which  immediately  followed  the 
publication  of  Tyndale's  Version  of  1534,  and  was  just  prior  to  the  appear- 
ance of  Coverdale's.  Convocation  then  intimated  an  intention  of  taking  up 
the  work  of  a  new  translation.  As,  however,  it  was  soon  seen  by  Cromwell 
that  the  carrying  out  of  this  intention  would  be  delayed  almost  indefinitely, 
Coverdale  was  appointed  to  the  work,  and  the  intention  of  Convocation  fell 
through.  Again,  at  another  important  period,  after  the  publication  of  the 
Great  Bible,  when  there  was  a  clear  desire  for  a  new  revision,  Convocation 
undertook  to  form  a  plan,  but  the  preparations  were  really  so  very  tiresome 
and  hopeless  (seeFuller,C^MrcAifis<ory,  book  v.,  4,  p.  237  seq.,Lond.,  1655; 
Joyce,  Sacred  Synods,  chap,  xi.,  p.  406)  that  the  work  was  transferred  to  the 


LEADING  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  AUTH.  VERSION.  79 

that  Convocation  will  bear  its  rightful  part  in  the  holy  and 
responsible  work. 

But,  to  return  to  the  revision  of  1611,  the  first  of  the 
leading  principles  was,  as  we  have  seen,  thoroughly  sound. 
Where  it  might  have  been  improved,  and  where  probably  it 
would  be  improved  in  any  futui-e  attempt,  would  be  in  a 
more  distinct  separation  between  the  revisers  of  the  versions 
of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testament.  Knowledge  has  now 
so  widely  increased,  and  the  tendency  to  specialty  in  knowl- 
edge is  now  so  distinct  a  characteristic  of  our  present  times, 
that  it  would  now  be  very  undesirable  for  the  work  of  the 
reviser  of  any  part  of  the  version  of  the  Old  Testament  to  be 
subjected  to  the  correcting  eye  of  a  reviser  connected  with 
the  New  Testament.  The  two  companies  must  now  work 
separately,  but  their  work  might  beneficially,  as  in  the  time 
of  King  James,  be  laid  before  a  small  Committee  of  Revision. 
It  would,  of  course,  also  be  necessary  that  both  companies, 
before  addressing  themselves  to  their  separate  work,  should 
come  to  a  thorough  agreement  on  all  details  as  regards  the 
nature  and  amount  of  revision,  and  the  general  character  of 
the  language  to  be  used,  where  a  change  of  rendering  might 
be  found  necessary.  This  last  matter,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  is  one  of  considerable  importance,  and  one  on  which  the 
general  acceptance  of  the  work  would  be  found  very  greatly 
to  depend.  The  first  leading  principle,  then,  of  the  last  re- 
vision is  to  be  thoroughly  approved  of,  and  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  carried  out  may  very  profitably  be  borne  well 
in  mind ;  but,  at  the  present  time,  modifications  would  cer- 
tainly be  desirable,  not  only  in  what  has  been  already  speci- 
fied, but  even  in  the  numbers  employed  and  the  mode  of 
meeting.  We  should  do  the  work  better  if  the  number  (for 
the  O.  T.)  were  less,  and  especially  if  the  work  of  revision 
were  carried  on  round  a  common  table.  There  would  then 
be  a  unity  in  the  whole,  and  a  harmony  in  the  general  tone 

Universities,  and  when  there,  as  might  be  supposed,  never  allowed  to  be  pro- 
ceeded mth.     See,  for  fui-ther  details,  i/is/onca/JccoM/!^,  p.  105  seq. 


80       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

of  the  corrections  which,  it  must  be  frankly  said,  is  certainly 

often  wanting  in  our  Authorized  Version. 

The  second  leading  principle  was  one  which  can  not  be  too 
Secondly;  as    Strongly  Commended — to  introduce  as  fcAv  al- 

few  changes  .  .  ,       .  , 

•  as  possible,  terations  as  it  may  be  into  the  current  version. 
On  the  precise  nature  and  amount  of  the  alterations  that 
may  from  time  to  time  be  considered  requisite,  there  will  be 
varying  opinions ;  but  it  certainly  was  a  wise  as  well  as  a 
charitable  principle  to  make  as  little  alteration  as  possible  in 
a  version  which  had  been  bound  up  with  the  devotional  feel- 
ings of  the  people,  at  least  as  far  as  the  hearing  of  the  ear 
went.  It  was  wise,  too,  to  follow  that  principle  of  minimum 
alteration  which  had  been  instinctively  followed  from  the 
edition  of  Matthew  down  to  the  time  of  the  last  revision. 
And  what  was  deemed  wise  and  charitable  then,  would  be 
obviously  much  more  so  now,  when  the  necessity  for  altera- 
tion has  become  diminished  by  successive  revisions,  and  when 
that  which  is  to  be  revised  has  for  more  than  250  years,  un- 
like the  Bishops'  Bible,  been  valued  in  the  closet,  the  house- 
hold, and  the  Church  with  equal  affection  and  veneration. 

These  two  principles  of  combined  labor  and  minimized  al- 
teration are  the  two  that  may  be  considered  the  leading  prin- 
ciples of  the  revision  of  1611.  For  the  most  part  they  seem 
to  have  been  followed  out  faithfully  and  persistently. 

Of  the  minor  principles  we  may  notice  three,  as  being  of 
Minor  princi-  some  imjjortance  in  forming  a  right  estimate  of 
P^^^'  the  Authorized  Version,  and  also  as  being  wor- 

thy of  consideration  in  reference  to  any  future  revision. 
The  first  of  these  relates  to  the  authorities  to  which  the 
Authorities  to  I'svisers  wei'c  to  havc  recourse  when  they  hap- 
be  consulted,    pgngd  to  agree  better  with  the  original  than  the 
Bishops'  Bible,     These  are  specified  in  the  instructions  as  the 
versions  of  Tyndale,  Coverdale,  Matthew,  Whitchurch  (/.  e., 
Cranmer — Whitchurch  and  Grafton  having  been  the  print- 
ers), and  the  Genevan  Version.     The  rule  was  good,  but  it 
may  be  said  generally  that  it  was  not  very  carefully  follow- 


LEADIXG  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  AUTH.  VERSION.  81 

ed,  except  perhaps  in  the  case  of  the  Genevan  Version.  Had 
they  followed  it  more  closely  they  would  have  removed  sev- 
eral errors  which  they  left  remaining,*  and  have  avoided 
some  which  they  introduced.  The  authorities  on  Avhicli  the 
revisers  seem  mainly  to  have  relied  are  Beza's  Latin  Version 
and  notes,  the  Genevan,  and  the  Rhemish  Version.  To  this 
last  version,  though  it  was  not  in  the  list  of  their  authorities, 
they  were  certainly  more  than  occasionally  indebted,  and 
commonly  with  advantage ;  as  the  Rhemish,  with  all  its 
faults  and  asperities,  was  a  translation  of  a  really  good  ver- 
sion, and,  at  any  rate,  is  very  affluent  in  its  vocabulary,  and 
very  useful  in  converting  Latin  words  into  English  service. f 
While,  then,  they  judiciously  used  existing  material,  and,  as 
we  know  from  Selden  and  from  their  own  preface,  did  not 
neglect  versions  in  other  and  modern  languages,  it  still  does 
seem  to  be  a  fact  that  they  did  not  very  carefully  attend  to 
the  versions  that  were  specified ;  inspection  seeming  to  cor- 
roborate the  remark  that  when  they  made  an  alteration  in 
the  Bishops'  Bible  they  rarely  went  back  to  an  earlier  version. 
A  second  principle  which  they  tell  us  in  the  preface  they 
Variation  in  the  ^^^  Considered  themselves  at  liberty  to  follow 
renderings.  ^,^^  ^-^qx  of  varying  the  translations  of  the  same 
Greek  word,  even  when  the  sense  might  seem  to  be  identical. 
Now  in  this  they  were  certainly  following  precedent,  as  in 
Coverdale's  Bible  especially,  and,  indeed,  in  all  the  earlier 
versions,  there  is  a  well-defined  tendency  to  use  synonyms. 
But  it  was  carried  much  too  far.  There  are  passages  in  the 
Synoptical  Gospels  in  which  several  continuous  words,  and 

*  To  name  one  out  of  several  instances  of  some  degree  of  importance, 
■\ve  may  notice  the  translation  of  Tro'tfivt]  in  John  x.,  10.  Our  own  version 
retains  the  incorrect  translation  "  fold"  which  had  come  in  with  the  Great 
Bible.  Had  the  revisers  turned  to  T3'ndale  they  could  hardly  have  failed  to 
have  reverted  to  his  correct  translation  "flock."  They  would  thus  not  only 
have  correctly  maintained  the  lexical  distinction  between  -iroifivr]  and  the  pre- 
ceding aiiX?7,  but  also  have  precluded  an  erroneous  doctrinal  deduction  which 
it  is  obvious  may  be  made,  and  has  often  been  made,  fi'om  the  passage. 

t  See  Westcott,  History  of  the  English  Bible,  p.  328. 


82       ELLICOTT  ON  BEVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

even  sentences,  identical  in  the  Greek,  are  translated  with 
needless  diversity;*  and  there  are  passages  of  grave  doc- 
trinal import,  such,  for  example,  as  Matt,  xxv.,  46,  in  which 
the  revisers  ought  certainly  to  have  corrected  the  earlier  ver- 
sions, and  to  have  preserved  the  same  translation  of  the  word 
in  both  classes.  No  doubt  there  are  many  passages  in  which 
the  tenor  of  the  context  does  really  prescribe  a  vai-iation 
from  the  meaning  usually  assigned,  and  where  the  truest 
translation  is  not  that  which  is  the  most  mechanically  con- 
sistent with  some  apparently  similar  use  of  the  same  words ; 
but  our  last  translators,  like  their  predecessors,  seem  certain- 
ly to  have  used  a  liberty  which  occasionally  degenerated  into 
license,  and  which  the  reviser  of  our  own  day  would  have  to 
subject  to  very  close  and  watchful  consideration. 

The  remaining  principle  which  we  may  notice  is  embodied 
Retention  of  the  in  the  instruction  which  prescribes  the  retention 
words.  of  the  old  ecclesiastical  words,  as,  for  example, 

"Church"  rather  than  "  congregation ;"  "baptism,"  not  "wash- 
ing." This  principle  has  been  as  fairly  followed  as  could 
have  been  expected  in  the  case  of  so  loose  a  definition  as  "ec- 
clesiastical ;"  but  several  instances  (e.  </., "  overseers,"  Acts 
XX.,  28)  have  been  specified  in  which  the  rule  has  not  been 
observed,  and  in  which  also  there  is  some  reason  to  fear  that 
polemical  considerations  were  allowed  to  intrude.  The  change 
in  1  Cor.  xiii.,  1  seq.,of  the  "love"  of  the  older  versions  to 
"  charity"  may  have  arisen  from  a  supposed  application  of 

*  A  good  paper  on  this  subject  by  Dean  Alford,  with  many  examples,  will 
be  found  in  the  Contemporary  Eevieiv  for  1868,  vol.  viii.,  p.  322  seq.  Diver- 
sity of  rendering  within  proper  bounds  is,  however,  often  necessary  for  a  truly 
faithful  and  idiomatic  translation.  The  converse  principle,  formally  enunci- 
ated by  Newcome,  and  even  very  recently  put  forward  in  Convocation  (see 
Guardian  for  May  11,  p.  550),  that  the  same  word  in  the  original  ought  al- 
ways to  be  translated  by  the  same  word  in  English,  certainly  can  not  always 
be  maintained.  The  word  in  the  original  is  often  more  inclusive  in  its  mean- 
ing than  the  English  word,  and  the  context  so  different,  that  a  version  con- 
structed on  a  rigid  observance  of  such  a  principle  would  frequently  be  found 
unreadable,  and  to  general  ears  sometimes  almost  unintelligible.  See  some 
comments  on  this  in  the  Westminster  Review  for  Jan.,  1857,  vol.  xi.,  p.  143. 


LEADING  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  AUTH.  VERSION.         83 

the  principle,  but  in  this  particular  case,  at  any  rate,  we  shall 
probably  all  sincerely  wish  that  no  such  application  had  been 
made.  This  principle  Avould  require  very  careful  considera- 
tion in  any  future  revision.  It  appears,  indeed,  to  have  been 
the  cause  of  some  little  solicitude  at  the  time,  as  there  are 
traces  of  a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  king  and  others  to  have 
a  small  overlooking  council  of  divines  specially  to  see  that 
this  and  a  similar  rule  were  attended  to.*  In  the  revision 
of  the  future,  however,  there  would  probably  be  less  diffi- 
culty. Common  consent  has  now  associated  a  certain  trans- 
lation with  certain  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  words.  This 
translation  would  of  course  be  maintained ;  care  only  would 
be  necessary  to  see  that  it  was  maintained  consistently,  dog- 
matical or  other  considerations  notwithstanding. 

One  minor  instruction  yet  remains  to  be  noticed,  viz.,  that 
Division  of  ^^^  division  of  the  chapters  was  "  to  be  altered 
the  chapters,  g^i^gj.  ^^^  r^^  q\\^  qj.  ^^  little  as  may  be,  if  neces- 
sity so  require."  Here  at  least  we  may  express  the  hope  that 
the  otherwise  safe  principle  of  a  minimum  of  alteration  will 
be  observed  in  any  future  revision.  Convenience  would  seem 
to  suggest  that  the  numbering,  though  not  the  mode  of  print- 
ing the  verses,  might  still  be  maintained,  but  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  changing  the  present  division  into  chapters,  especial- 
ly in  the  New  Testament,  will,  we  hope,  be  thoroughly  con- 
sidered.f    The  recent  recommendations  of  the  Ritual  Com- 

*  See  Historical  Account  (Bagster),  p.  153.  Some  anxiety  has  been  mani- 
fested on  this  subject  in  recent  newspaper  letters,  but  without  any  reason.  It 
lias  been  feared  that  Nonconformists  would  demand  changes  in  such  words  as 
"  Church"  and  "  baptize."  We  venture  to  say  for  them  that  no  fear  need  be 
entertained  on  such  a  subject.  The  Baptist  scholar,  for  instance,  would  nev- 
er press  for  a  new  translation  of  j8a7rrt?w  as  a  Baptist — "  baptize"  having  to 
him  and  his  co-religionists  a  meaning  as  definite  as  it  has  to  us,  and  being  ac- 
cepted accordingly.  All  he  would  press  for  would  be,  as  a  scholar,  that  where 
the  context  permitted,  uniformity  of  translation  should  be  maintained  in  this 
and  all  other  words  of  importance,  ecclesiastical  or  otherwise. 

t  Attention  may  here  rightly  be  called  to  the  two  forms  of  a  Paragi-aph 
Bible  published  by  the  Religious  Tract  Society.  The  divisions  adopted  are 
evidently  the  result  of  much  care  and  consideration,  and  will  commonly  be 
found  to  commend  themselves  to  the  reader.     An  article  of  some  interest  on 


84       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

mission  in  reference  to  the  Lectionary  will  probably,  if  they 
become  law,  tend  at  once  to  introduce  some  other  change, 
and  perhaps  may  supply  the  general  outline  for  a  remodel- 
ing of  the  present  divisions.  It  is  Avell  known  to  scholars 
that  in  the  New  Testament  we  have  an  admirable  system  of 
sections  in  some  of  the  older  manuscripts,  especially  in  the 
Vatican  Manuscrijjt.  These,  of  course,  would  have  to  be 
carefully  reviewed,  but  it  is  probable  that  they  might  be 
found  too  short  for  general  adoj)tion,  and  that  some  division 
like  that  of  the  revised  Lectionary  might,  on  the  whole,  be 
most  available. 

We  have  now  fairly  concluded  our  lengthened  survey  of 
the  leading  characteristics  of  the  Authorized  Version,  and  the 
interesting  relations  in  which  it  stands  to  the  versions  that 
have  preceded  it.  We  have  seen,  and,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  ap- 
preciated, the  wise  and  leading  principle  of  minimized  altera- 
tion and  guarded  change  that  has  prevailed  from  the  very 
first,  amid  all  the  varying  circumstances  of  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical history.*  That  this  principle  may  be  faithfully  main- 
tained in  any  future  revision  must  be  the  hope  and  prayer  of 
every  earnest  Englishman,  and  that  it  loiU  be  maintained  we 
are  as  fully  persuaded  as  we  are  of  the  per2:»etual  presence  of 
the  Lord  in  our  mother  Church. 

With  this  feeling,  and  with  a  loyal  adherence  to  the  lead- 
ing principles  that  have  now  been  specified,  we  may  at  once 
pass  onward  to  the  difficulties  which  the  succeeding  chapter 
will  i^resent,  and  consider,  generally  and  jjopularly,  what 
would  seem  to  be  the  limits  to  which  revision  should  be 
carefully  confined. 

Paragraph  Bibles  will  be  found  in  the  Edinhurg  Review  for  Oct.,  1855,  vol. 
cii.,  p.  419  seq. 

*  Even  in  the  troublous  times  which  preceded  the  Eestoration  the  subject 
of  revision  was  not  entirely  overlooked.  It  is  noticed  by  Prof.  Plumptre  that 
the  question  was  brought  before  the  Grand  Committee  of  Religion  in  the 
House  of  Commons  in  Jan.,  1656,  and  referred  to  a  sub-committee,  which, 
however,  never  seems  to  have  reported.  See  Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible, 
vol.  iii.,p.  1678. 


NATURE  AND  LIMITS  OF  REVISION.  85 


CHAPTER  IV. 

NATURE   AND   LIMITS    OF   REVISION. 

We  have  now  before  us  a  difficult  portion  of  the  subject, 
Different  opin-    and  one  ou  which  some  preliminary  considera- 

ious  as  to  extent     .         .  .  ... 

of  revision.  tion  is  especially  necessary.  That  a  revision  is 
desirable  would  seem  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of 
thoughtful  and  uni^rejudiced  persons,  but  how  far  that  revi- 
sion should  extend  is  a  matter  in  which  we  observe  great  di- 
versity of  sentiment.  In  the  minds  of  some,  revision  means 
only  sober  and  guarded  change,  there,  and  there  only,  where 
truth  and  faithfulness  positively  requirb  it.  In  the  minds  of 
others  it  is  simply  synonymous  with  rashness  and  innova- 
tion :  our  venerable  version  is  to  be  disfigured  and  Frenchi- 
fied ;  our  familiar  religious  words  are  to  be  altered ;  all  that 
is  dear  to  the  simple  and  devout  believer  is  to  be  cleared 
away  by  modern  criticism  or  marred  by  inconsiderate  change. 

That  writers  and  thinkers  of  this  latter  class  show  plainly 
that  tliey  know  very  little  of  the  history  of  the  English  Bi- 
ble, and  very  inadequately  estimate  the  deep  conservatism  in 
the  English  mind  in  regard  of  the  one  Book,  is  perfectly  evi- 
dent ;  but  that  they  obtain  a  sort  of  hearing  is  also  clear,  and 
that  they  tend  to  import  prejudice  and  bias  into  the  whole 
subject  is  unfortunately  clearer  still. 

With  such  writers  and  thinkers  it  is  impossible  to  argue. 
Antecedent  prejudice  renders  them  commonly  impervious  to 
the  force  of  fair  considerations,  and  leaves  them  only  in  the 
attitude  of  half-angry  opposition.  Such  opponents  we  can 
not  hope  to  conciliate ;  but  there  are  many,  very  many,  deep- 
ly interested  in  the  subject,  who  do  confessedly  feel  great 
anxiety  as  to  the  degree  of  revision  to  which  a  nineteenth 
century  might  advance.     Even  considerations,  such  as  those 


86        ELLICOTT  ON  EEVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

of  the  preceding  chapter,  drawn  from  tlie  history  of  former 
revisions,  fail  to  satisfy ;  as  the  not  unreasonable  fear  is  ever 
ready  to  show  itself,  that  this  principle  of  least  possible  alter- 
ation, which  prevailed  when  revision  followed  revision  at  no 
lengthened  interval,  might  be  much  endangered  now  from 
the  simple  fact  that  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 
have  come  and  gone  since  the  date  of  the  last,  and  that  the 
very  lapse  of  time  and  the  changes  of  language  and  expres- 
sion necessarily  due  to  it  must,  by  the  very  nature  of  the 
case,  seriously  affect  the  question. 

Such  anticipations  are  not  unnatural ;  such  implied  objec- 
tions are  perfectly  fair  and  reasonable ;  but  the  answer  seems 
conclusive  —  that  the  version  we  are  considering  has  really 
fixed,  to  a  great  degree,  the  standard  of  our  general  as  well 
as  of  our  theological  language,  and  that  the  English  Bible  is 
really  our  first  English  classic,  as  well  as  the  Book  of  Life 
and  Truth.  It  may  be  added,  too,  that,  in  a  literary  point  of 
view,  the  whole  question  of  language  is  in  a  far  better  state 
than  it  was  a  hundred  or  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago.* 
The  wretched  attempts  at  revision  in  the  j^ast  centuiy,  if  com- 
pared even  with  the  worst  and  most  pretentious  efforts  of 
the  present  century,  will  show  very  convincingly  that  the  ar- 
gument derived  from  the  long  interval  has  no  real  weight, 
and  that  no  revision  in  the  present  day  could  hope  to  meet 
with  an  hour's  acceptance  if  it  failed  to  preserve  the  tone, 
rhythm,  and  diction  of  the  present  Authorized  Version.f 

*  See  Abp.  Trench  On  the  Auth.  Version  of  the  New  Test.,  p.  W;  where 
some  specimens  are  given  of  the  unhappy  revisions  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
The  remarks  in  the  work  just  referred  to  on  "  the  Enghsh  of  our  Version"' 
(chap,  ii.)  are  especially  deserv'ing  of  attention. 

t  Nothing  is  more  satisfactory  at  the  pi^sent  time  than  the  evident  feel- 
ings of  veneration  for  our  Authorized  Version,  and  the  very  generally-felt 
desire  for  as  little  change  as  possible.  In  a  recent  leading  article  on  this 
subject  in  the  Times  of  May  6  the  writer  very  properly  presses  on  the  revisers 
a  salutary  caution — "that  it  shoidd  be  their  aim  not  to  make  as  many,  but 
to  make  as  few,  alterations  as  possible ;"  and  justly  remarks  that  "  it  will  oft- 
en be  much  better  to  sacrifice  a  point  of  strict  grammatical  accuracy  than  to 
jar  the  ear  and  lose  the  sympathy  of  readers. " 


NATURE  AND  LIMITS  OF  REVISION.  '  87 

We  may  dismiss,  then,  this  class  of  objections  and  object- 
Extent  of  revi-    oi's,  and  now  turn  to  the  really  difficult  question 

sion  considered         ,  .    ,       ,  i  11/.  rr, 

iu  detail  whicu  the  present  chapter  places  before  us — To 

what  extent  is  revision  to  be  carried  ?  On  what  principles 
are  alterations  to  be  introduced,  and  how  far  is  exact  scholai-- 
ship  to  be  allowed  to  modify  when  the  case  is  not  one  of  ac- 
tual error?  Unless  some  answer  is  attempted  to  primary 
questions  such  as  these,  revision  will  be  a  leap  in  the  dark. 
It  will  be  either  so  occasional  and  superficial  that  the  usual 
argumentum  inertice  —  viz.,  that  if  there  is  to  be  so  little 
change,  it  is  really  not  desirable  to  disturb  the  minds  of  de- 
vout persons  by  touching  the  Book  at  all — will  certainly  con- 
sign the  work,  when  done,  to  the  oblivion  that  fortunately  has 
been  the  fate  of  so  many  revisions;  or,  on  the  other  hand, it 
will  be  of  such  an  uneven  character  (alteration  always  hav- 
ing a  tendency  to  accelerate,  and  revisers  being  always  dan- 
gerously open  to  the  temptation  of  using  with  increasing  free- 
dom acquired  facilities),  that  the  uniform  character  of  the 
present  version  will  always  hold  its  own  against  the  irreg- 
ular development  of  its  temporary  rival.  Principles,  then, 
must  be  laid  down,  though  at  the  same  time  we  confess,  if 
there  is  to  be  real  success,  there  must  always  be  in  reserve  a 
dispensing  power  for  passages  where  from  varied  reasons, 
textual,  exegetical,  and  linguistic,  the  old  rendering  must  be 
left  untouched.  It  is  here  where  the  great  difficulty  of  the 
work  will  be  felt,  and  here  also  where  no  rules  can  be  laid 
down,  but  where  we  can  ultimately  trust  to  nothing  but  to 
sensitive  judgment,  and  to  the  acquired  tact  of  a  watchful 
experience.  Subject  to  such  a  necessary  limitation,  we  may 
now  endeavor  to  state  and  classify  those  cases  to  which  re- 
vision may  be  properly  applied.  We  will  begin  with  those 
about  which  there  will  be  least  doubt,  and  advance  gradually 
to  the  point  where  a  just  conservatism,  and  a  due  regard  to 
the  principles  already  laid  down,  seem  fairly  to  stop  us. 

The  first  class  of  passages  demanding  correction  will  al- 
ways be  those  where  there  is  clear  and  plain  error,  and  where 


88       ELLICOTT  02i  HEVISIOX  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

the  incorrectness  Avould  be  recognized  by  any  competent 
Passages  invoiy-  scholar  to  whom  the  passasre  was  submitted. 

ing  doctrinal  er-  .  .  , 

w-  Here  our  duty  is   obvious.     Faithfulness,  and 

loyalty  to  God's  truth,  require  that  the  correction  should  be 
made  unhesitatingly.  This  class  of  cases  will,  however,  em- 
brace many  different  instances ;  some  of  real  and  primary  im- 
portance, some  in  which  the  sense  will  be  but  little  affected, 
Avhen  the  error,  grammatically  great  as  it  really  may  be,  is 
removed,  and  the  true  rendering  substituted.  For  instance, 
we  shall  have  in  the  class  we  are  now  considering  passages 
in  which  the  error  is  one  of  a  doctrinal  nature,  or,  to  use  the 
most  guarded  language,  involves  some  degree  of  liability  to 
doctrinal  misconception.  For  such  passages  we  have  not  so 
far  to  go  as  it  is  popularly  supposed.  Take  such  a  passage 
as  Rom.  v.,  1 5, 17,  where,  as  Bentley  observed  long  ago,*  the 
neglect  of  the  articles  in  the  original  has  not  only  obscured 
the  sense  and  Aveakened  the  antithesis,  but  has  left  an  open- 
ing for  inferences  on  redemption  and  reprobation  which,  to 
say  the  least,  are  not  substantiated  by  this  passage.  Take 
again  such  a  passage  as  1  Cor.  xi.,  29,  where,  if  we  do  not  go 
the  full  length  of  attributing  definite  error  to  the  translation, 
we  have,  at  any  rate,  a  rendering  of  Kpl^a  which,  combined 
with  the  intruded  dj/a^/we,  has  produced  an  influence  on  thou- 
sands, and  even  tens  of  thousands,  of  a  very  unhappy  kind. 
We  must  add  to  such  a  list  Heb.  x.,  38,  where  the  words  in- 
serted in  the  Authorized  Version,  to  say  the  very  least,  have 
nothing  whatever  to  correspond  with  them  in  the  original. 
We  may  also  name  Acts  ii.,  47,  where,  confessedly  hard  as  it 
may  be  to  express  tovq  ffw^o/utVovc  ("  those  who  were  being 
saved")  in  an  easy  and  idiomatic  translation,  faithfulness  re- 
quires that  we  should  change  a  rendering  which  not  only 
leads  to  a  doctrinal  inference  not  warranted  by  the  tense, 
but  obscures  the  true  and  almost  technical  meaning  which 

*  The  passage  will  be  found  in  Bentley 's  Sermon  upon  Popery  (Works,  vol. 
/'Y*    iii.,  p.  2-15),  and  in  Trench,  Revision  of  Auth.  Vers.,  p.  86-  seq.,  where  it  is 
quoted  at  full  length. 


NATURE  AND  LIMITS  OF  BEVISION.  S9 

tliis  important  expression  constantly  maintains  in  passages 
of  profound  doctrinal  import,  e.^.,  Luke  xiii.,  23.  In  a  pas- 
sage confessedly  of  great  difficulty  as  to  its  exact  reference, 
viz.,  Col.  ii.,  15,  the  mistranslation  oi  innKCvau^ivoQ  has  at  any 
rate  put  wholly  out  of  sight  the  mysterious  connection  which 
this  passage  seems  to  have  with  the  closing  hours  of  our 
Lord's  earthly  life,  and  the  deep  significance  of  some  inci- 
dents in  the  awful  scene  on  Golgotha.  We  have  before  al- 
luded to  John  X.,  16,  where  w^e  can  certainly  draw  no  infer- 
ence as  to  the  oneness  of  the  "  fold,"  and  where  the  present 
translation  might  seem  to  lead  to  this  unauthorized  inference. 
We  might  easily  continue  this  list,  but  as  it  is  not  our  ob- 
ject to  enumerate,  but  rather  to  illustrate,  it  may  be  enough 
to  have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that,  in  spite  of  the  very 
common  assumption  to  the  contrary,  there  are  many  passages 
from  which  erroneous  doctrinal  inferences  have  been  drawn, 
but  where  the  inference  comes  from  the  translation,  and  not 
the  original. 

The  list  of  actual  and  definite  errors  of  a  less  important 
Errors  of  less  ^i°^  ^^  vcry  large.  In  the  majority  of  such  cases 
importance,  j^  ^^^  |jg  admitted  that  Christian  life  and  prac- 
tice neither  is  nor  has  been  ever  affected  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree by  the  existence  of  these  errors.  For  instance,  if  we 
give  the  proper  translation  oi'iltre  in  Gal.  vi.,  11,  of  civXi^ovrec 
in  Matt,  xxiii.,  24  (unless,  indeed,  this  be  due  to  the  jjrinter), 
of  KavaitVjjc  in  Matt,  x.,  4  (comp.  Mark  iii.,  18),  of  diafiepii^ofxe- 
vai  in  Acts  ii.,  3,  of  £t2ouc  in  1  Thess.  v.,  22,  of  Trwpwffte  in  Eph. 
iv.,  18,  of^aivEade  in  Phil,  ii.,  15,  and  even  of  airevZovTaQ  in  2  Pet. 
iii.,  1 2,  we  contribute  to  the  general  faithfulness  and  accuracy 
of  our  version,  but  add  nothing  to  what  could  be  considered 
of  serious  moment.  As  far  as  the  general  reader  is  concerned, 
the  true  or  the  erroneous  rendering  might  nearly  equally  well 
hold  its  place  in  the  English  text,  and  this  remark  is  often 
used  as  an  argument  for  leaving  things  alone.  But  the  re- 
mark is  equally  available  for  the  contrary  course :  if  the  re- 
moval of  errors  would  so  little  afiect  the  general  reader,  sure- 

Ll 


90       ELLICOTT  OX  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

ly  it  is  all  the  more  the  duty  of  faithfulness  to  the  message 
of  inspiration  to  transmit  it  to  the  English  hearer  free  from 
incorrectness  and  error,  on  pure  principle  ;  and  the  more  so, 
as  there  is  no  reasonable  probability  that  even  what  might 
be  called  prejudiced  attachment  to  our  version  as  it  stands 
would  in  any  way  be  weakened  by  the  change.  It  would  be 
counted  so  small  as  to  be  to  the  general  reader  not  a  matter 
of  conscience,  but  of  indifference. 

We  may  then,  perhaps,  fairly  conclude  that  all  errors, 
whether  of  the  first  or  second  class  of  those  enumerated,  or, 
indeed,  of  any  class,  should  be  removed,  and  it  may  be  said 
with  all  loyalty  to  our  Authorized  Version,  but  yet  with  all 
truth,  that  these  errors  will  be  found  to  be  by  no  means  few 
in  number. 

When  we  come  to  the  more  subdued  shade  of  error  that 
Removal  of  iliac-  ^^^7  ^^  expressed  for  convenience  by  the  word 
much  considera-^  inaccuracy  or  inexactness,  it  becomes  much  more 
^^^^-  difficult  to  decide  on  the  limits  to  which  revi- 

sion should  extend.  If  the  principle  of  faithfulness  to  God's 
truth  move  us,  on  the  one  hand,  to  correct  wherever  the  En- 
glish Version  does  not  accurately  convey  the  meaning  or 
shade  of  meaning  of  the  original,  we  yet  have,  on  the  other 
hand,  two  countervailing  considerations  which  must  weigh 
seriously  with  every  sober  thinker.  First,  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  to  countless  thousands  the  English  Bible  is 
the  Book  of  Life.  To  them  it  is  as  though  God  had  vouch- 
safed thus  to  communicate  with  man  from  the  first :  it  is  a 
positive  effort  to  them  to  feel  and  believe  that  the  familiar 
words,  as  they  meet  the  eye  or  fall  on  the  ear,  did  not  thus 
for  the  first  time  issue  from  the  lips  of  patriarch  or  prophet ; 
nay,  that  the  touching  cadences  in  the  Gospels  were  not  orig- 
inally so  modulated  by  the  tender  and  sympathizing  voice 
of  our  own  adorable  Master.  We  have  heard  even  of  ser- 
mons in  which  such  thoughts  have  unconsciously  bewrayed 
themselves,  and  believe  that  at  this  moment  there  are  num- 
bers of  earnest  people  who  could  easily  be  carried  away  by 


NATURE  AXD  LIMITS  OF  BEVISION.  91 

their  deeper  feelings,  almost  at  any  moment,  into  a  thorough 
sympathy  with  appeals  to  the  familiar  language  of  their  cher- 
ished English  Testament,  and  who,  when  reminded  of  the  act- 
ual facts,  would  with  a  sigh  awaken  from  the  happy  illusion, 
and  avow  their  reluctance  to  part  with  this  mentis  gratissi- 
mus  error.  Are  we  to  have  no  sympathy  for  this  large  class  ? 
Is  there  not  something  in  the  heart-affection  for  the  "  dear 
old  English  Bible"  that  deserves  the  respect  even  of  the 
scholar  and  the  theologian?  Child-like  faith  is  very  blessed ; 
let  us  run  the  risk  of  being  called  sentimental  or  quixotic 
rather  than  needlessly  offend  one  of  these  little  ones  that  thus 
believe  in  His  Word  and  in  Him. 

Secondly.,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  effort  to  be  ac- 
curate often  involves  some  sacrifice  of  the  idiomatic  turn  and 
rhythmic  flow  of  the  English,  and  that  the  gain  in  exactness 
has  often  to  be  purchased  at  a  price  which  even  the  most  de- 
voted scholar  might,  on  consideration,  hesitate  to  pay.  The 
different  idioms  of  the  two  languages,  the  parallelism  rather 
than  coincidence  in  respect  of  tenses,  the  much  less  logical 
use  of  particles  in  our  own  language  than  in  Greek,  the  dif- 
ferent principles  of  order  and  emjihasis — all  these  things  real- 
ly do  often  make  accuracy  only  attainable  on  terms  which 
are  beyond  our  means,  and  which  would,  in  fact,  be  inconsist- 
ent with  the  ground-principles  of  a  version  Avhich  is  to  be 
read  imhlidy  as  well  as  j^rivately,  and  is  to  be  idiomatic  as 
well  as  exact.  How  often  it  must  have  happened  to  many  a 
one  whose  eyes  may  fall  on  these  lines,  to  have  made  a  verbal 
correction  in  our  version  which,  at  the  time,  seemed  not  only 
certain,  but  a  clear  contextual  improvement,  and  then,  after 
an  interval,  to  have  read  it  over  again,  and  come  to  the  can- 
did opinion  that  it  was  an  over-correction^  and,  by  being  so, 
was  really  less  faithful  to  the  tone  of  the  original  than  that 
which  it  had  displaced.  This  consideration  is  really  one  of 
very  great  importance,  for  it  reaches  to  that  very  difficult 
question  of  the  limits  to  which,  in  translation,  a  language  may 
be  stretched  without  losing  its  idiomatic  vigor  and  elasticity. 


92        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

But  are  we  then  to  attempt  nothing  in  the  way  of  securing 
Limitations  in  greater  accuracy  in  the  English  Version  ?    Is  it 

corrections  of  ,.    ,  ^  ^    •      ^      .      •       .  i  i  a 

tiiis  nature.  not  One  ot  the  most  certam  lacts  in  the  world 
that  it  is  in  the  matter  of  technical  exactness  and  grammat- 
ical accuracy  that  our  version  is  most  open  to  adverse  com- 
ment ?  After  what  we  have  already  seen  of  the  characteris- 
tics and  pedigree  of  our  version,  it  would  not  be  natural  to 
expect  that  it  could  be  otherwise.  It  is  substantially  a  ver- 
sion made  by  one  faithful  man  long  ago,  under  circumstances 
of  varying  trial,  revised  partially  at  intervals,  and  only  thor- 
oughly revised  two  hundred  and  sixty  years  ago.  Great  ad- 
vances in  accuracy  of  scholarship  have  been  made  since  that 
last  revision,  and  modern  eyes  detect  many  things  that  were 
not  observed  then.  Are  not  many  needful  distinctions  ef- 
faced ?  Is  there  not  far  too  much  license  in  the  use  of  En- 
glish synonyms  when  it  is  the  same  Greek  word  and  a  sim- 
ilar context  ?  Are  there  not  very  many  cases  in  which  the 
force  of  the  article  is  missed  ?  Are  not  imi^ortant  shades  of 
meaning  conveyed  by  the  tenses  of  the  original,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, the  imperfect  and  the  preterperfect,  often  quite  needless- 
ly obliterated  ?  Is  there  not  often  inaccuracy  in  the  transla- 
tion of  the  prepositions,  and  sometimes  even  in  passages  of 
some  little  doctrinal  importance  ?  Is  there  not,  occasionally 
at  least,  an  instance  to  be  found  in  which  the  logical  connec- 
tion of  a  passage  has  suffered  by  a  loose  translation  of  a  lead- 
ing particle  ?  Certainly :  all  this  may  be  safely  and  frankly 
admitted ;  the  careful  comparison  of  any  single  chapter  of 
moderate  length  with  the  Greek  would  show  the  justice  of 
probably  every  one  of  the  foregoing  queries.  We  do  not 
give  instances  simply  because  they  can  be  found  in  any  hand- 
book,* and  because  it  is  really  difficult,  with  so  large  a  choice, 

*  We  may  refer  especially  to  Abp.  Trench  On  the  Revision  of  the  Author- 
ized Version,  chap,  iv.,  v.,  ra.,  viii.,  ix.,  where  numerous  examples  will  be 
found  of  inaccuracies  and  questionable  renderings.  The  Hints /or  an  Im- 
proved Translation  of  the  late  Professor  Scholefield  will  also  supply  many 
instances.  We  still,  however,  need  a  careful  work  in  which  the  errors,  in- 
accuracies, and  doubtful  renderings  in  the  Authorized  Version  might  be  ar- 


NATURE  AND  LIMITS  OF  EEVISIOX.  93 

to  make  a  sufficiently  wide  and  inclusive  selection.  Well, 
then,  what  are  we  to  do  in  such  cases?  Up  to  what  limits 
are  we  to  carry  revision  in  the  particular  case  of  inaccuracy^ 
and  yet  retain  that  principle  of  least  possible  alteration  which 
is  the  only  principle  on  which  any  successful  revision  could 

be  made? The  foregoing  paragraphs  have  perhaps 

tended  to  supply  the  true  answer :  Inaccuracies,  about  ichich 
there  is  no  reasonable  doubt,  may  be  beneficially  corrected, 
subject  to  the  following  limitations,  viz.,  that  the  idiom  of 
the  language  is  not  affected  by  the  change ;  that  the  change 
does  not  introduce  more  than  is  implied  in  the  original,  and 
is,  in  fact,  an  over-correction ;  that  the  tone  of  the  clause  or 
sentence,  and  the  familiar  rhythm,  are  not  seriously  inter- 
fered with ;  and,  lastly,  that  the  character  of  the  passage  and 
its  associations  are  not  such  that  the  correction  of  the  local 
inaccuracy  might  weaken  tlie  general  reader's  real  apprecia- 
tion of  the  tenor  of  the  whole  passage.  This  last  restriction 
is  of  importance,  as  it  often  happens  that  a  correction  of  some 
inaccuracy  of  detail  mars  in  some  subtle  manner  the  balance 
of  the  whole  clause,  and  ultimately  really  introduces  more 
inaccuracy  in  our  general  perception  of  its  tenor  and  senti- 
ment than  has  been  removed  by  the  alteration.  In  a  word, 
the  tone  of  the  passage  has  been  injured,  and  the  change  in 
the  part  has  interfered  with  the  harmony  of  the  whole. 

If  these  restrictions,  which  we  have  studiously  stated  in 
negative  clauses,  ai-e  carefully  observed,  it  would  not  seem 
imprudent  to  extend  revision  to  indisputable  inaccuracies. 
It  is  clear,  however,  that  no  rales  or  restrictions  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  apply  to  all  the  really  numberless  cases  that  will 
come  under  the  observation  of  the  reviser.  Tact  and  expe- 
rience, and,  let  us  not  forget  to  add,  a  careful  imitation  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  revisers  of  1611  acted,  in  respect  of  in- 
ranged  on  some  scholarly  and  logical  principle,  Newcome's  fifteen  rules  are 
made  the  heads  under  which  some  useful  examples  are  grouped  by  a  writer 
in  the  Westminster  Review  for  Jan.,  1837,  p.  lil  seq.  These  rules,  however, 
require  much  modification. 


94        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

exactness,  toward  the  Bisboi^s'  Bible  (a  truly  admirable  por- 
tion of  their  work),  will  be  found  to  do  more  for  us  than  all 
rules.  We  may,  however,  pause  for  a  page  or  two  to  give  a 
few  examples,  some  of  inaccuracies  which  might  be  benefi- 
cially removed,  and  some  of  cases  where,  for  one  or  more  of 
the  restrictions  above  alluded  to,  it  might  seem  best  to  leave 
the  passage  alone. 

It  is  really  difficult  to  know  how  to  make  a  selection ;  but 
Examples  of  in-  let  US  take  first  that  large  class  of  cases  where  a 

accuracies.  Gen-  .   .  „ 

itive  of  quality,  genitive  ol  quality  is  found  in  the  original,  and 
where  in  our  version  an  adjective  is  used.  In  such  a  passage 
as  Phil,  iii.,  21, it  seems  quite  clear  that  "the  body  of  our 
vileness"  and  "  the  body  of  his  glory"  would  be  more  truth- 
ful and  forcible  than  "our  vile  body"  and  "his  glorious  body," 
as  we  now  have  it  in  our  English  Version.  It  would  be 
consistent,  too,  with  the  general  principle  of  our  version,  in 
which  the  instances  are  numerous  where  the  adjectival  trans- 
lation of  the  older  versions  is  removed  for  the  more  vigorous 
and  expressive  genitive.  Thus,  in  Eph.  i.,  18, "  the  riches  of 
his  gloi'ious  inheritance"  of  Tyndale  and  the  Genevan  Testa- 
ment rightly  passes  under  the  discriminating  hand  of  the  last 
revisers  into  the  familiar  "  riches  of  the  glory  of  his  inherit- 
ance ;"  and  the  even  more  familiar  "  mammon  of  unright- 
eousness," in  Luke  xvi.,  9,  is  the  wise  change  from  the  "  wick- 
ed mammon"  of  Tyndale,  and  the  "unrighteous  mammon"  of 
Cranmer.  At  the  same  time,  it  would  be  hardly  advisable 
to  change  in  the  very  same  parable,  and  only  one  verse  be- 
fore, "the  unjust  steward"  into  "the  steward  of  injustice" 
or  "  the  steward  of  unrighteousness,"  though  it  is  certainly 
grammatically  true  that  the  genitive  is  a  genitive  of  quality, 
and  does  very  distinctly  serve  to  mark  that  ulida  was  the 
ruling  princijjle  of  the  man's  wretched  life.  Tact  is  here  our 
only  guide. 

Again,  can  we  be  sufficiently  thankful  that  our  last  revisers 
fell  back  on  the  rendering  of  Coverdale  in  2  Thess.  ii.,  3,  "the 
man  of  sin,"  rather  than  "  the  sinful  man"  of  Tyndale  and  all 


NATURE  AXD  LIMITS  OF  liEVISIOX.  95 

the  earlier  versions  except  the  Rhemish  ?  though,  by  the 
way,  a  little  lower  down,  in  ver.  7,  we  may  reasonably  ex- 
press regret  that  they  did  not  maintain  the  true  meaning  of 
ayofiia.  "Lawlessness"  is  to  be  the  essential  character  of 
Antichrist,  and  is  a  part  of  the  mystery  which  Avas  showing 
itself  even  in  the  apostle's  day,  .and  is  now  so  ominously  de- 
veloping itself  in  our  own. 

\Ye  should,  then,  only  be  following  the  jsrecedent  of  our 
own  version  if  in  many  passages,  such  as  Rom.  viii.,  21,  2 
Cor.  iv,,  4  (Craumer  keeps  the  genitive),  Col.  i.,  13, 1  Pet.  i., 
14  (contrast  the  rendering  in  Eph.  ii,,  2),  2  Pet.  ii.,  14,  al.,  we 
introduce  the  strong  and  expressive  genitive  of  the  original 
Greek. 

In  the  tenses,  the  cases  of  inaccuracy  are  very  numerous ; 
Tenses.  but  here  again  considerable  caution  and  a  due 
observance  of  the  restrictions  above  alluded  to  will  be  found 
especially  needed.  In  the  imperfect,  for  instance,  there  are 
several  passages  in  which  a  strict  translation  is  absolutely 
required  by  the  circumstances,  but  there  are  also  very  many 
more  in  which  the  flow  of  the  English  Version  would  be  im- 
peded, and  the  general  aspect  of  the  action  described  nnduly 
emphasized,  if  the  more  literal  translation  was  introduced. 
For  example,  in  Luke  v.,  6,  dupijywTo  clearly  ought  to  be 
translated  "  was  bi'eaking,"  or  was  "  beginning  to  break ;" 
but  if,  a  few  verses  lower,  we  adopted  the  same  sort  of  ren- 
dering in  the  case  of  ^ajp^tro  and  awnp^ovro  (ver.  15),  we 
should  not  only  be  overdoing  the  translation,  but  precluding 
ourselves  from  marking  by  a  special  change  of  diction  in  the 

next  verse  the  ?}v  vnoyjapCjv koX  TrpocTEvxofJieyoc^  AV'here  the 

resolved  form  would  really  seem  to  have  been  designed  by 
the  evangelist  to  express  more  strongly  than  the  ordinary 
imperfect  the  continuance,  and,  for  the  time,  the  habitual 
character  of  the  action.* 

*  Two  of  the  earlier  translators  mark  the  change  of  diction,  and  the  appa- 
rent specification  of  the  continuance  of  the  act,  by  the  translation,  "And  he 
kepte  him  silfe  apart"  (Tyndale),  "and  he  kepte  him  silfe  out  of  the  way" 


96        ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

In  the  translation  of  the  prepositions  many  wise  changes 
Prepositions,  might  be  made,  some  of  them  of  real  interest 
and  importance.  For  instance,  in  Gal.  iii.,  19,  much  of  a  doc- 
trinal nature  is  involved  in  the  translation  we  assign  to  the 
quasi-preposition  xapt»',  while  in  the  last  clause  of  the  same 
verse  a  really  historical  fact  seems  brought  out  by  observing 
the  true  force  of  lia  with  the  genitive ;  angels  were  the  in- 
termediate agencies  by  which  the  law  was  ordained  on  Sinai. 
As  Theodoret  remarks,  they  were  present  and  assistants  at 
the  solemn  scene.  Again,  in  2  Pet.  i.,  5-7,  the  ethical  rela- 
tion of  the  substantives  to  each  other  is  quite  effaced  by  the 
translation  unfortunately  adopted  in  the  Authorized  Version : 
the  development  of  Christian  graces  the  one  from  the  other 
is  exquisitely  marked  in  the  pregnant  and  inclusive  iv  of  the 
original,  and  is,  to  a  great  degree,  preserved  in  the  simple 
and  usual  translation  of  the  preposition  as  rightly  preserved 
by  Tyndale  and  Cranmer.  But  here  again  caution  will  be 
necessary,  and  a  due  observance  not  merely  of  technical 
identity  of  language,  but  of  the  tenor  of  the  passage ;  as,  for 
example,  though  the  significant  use  of  the  preposition  tig  is 
rightly  preserved  by  the  A.  V.  in  the  translation  of  Gal.  iii., 
27,  EiQ  Xpitrrdu  iPaTrriadrjTe,  it  is  abundantly  clear  that  such  a 
translation  would  be  very  inappropriate  in  1  Cor.  x.,  2,  elg  rov 
Movffijv  ifoaTTTivavTo,  where  our  own  version,  by  its  happy 
choice  of  "unto,"  at  once  relieves  us  from  the  somewhat 
awkward  "  under"  of  Tyndale,  and  at  the  same  time  marks 
the  essential  difference  between  a  baptism  unto  Moses  and 
baptism  into  the  mystical  body  of  Christ. 

In  the  case  of  particles,  numerous  instances  could  be  given, 

Particles,      especially  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  where  the  whole 

reasoning  of  a  passage  is  brought  out  by  a  careful  observance 

(Cranmer).  As  a  general  rule,  it  would  seem  desirable,  where  some  latent 
meaning  is  really  brought  out  by  such  a  change,  to  make  it,  especially  as  we 
have  the  authority  of  the  early  versions,  but  it  would  be  a  rule  with  many  ex- 
ceptions. For  instance,  in  Gal.  i. ,  22,  we  might  perhaps  tolerate  ' '  I  remain- 
ed unknown"  as  marking  the  continuance  of  the  state,  but  in  ver.  23  ukovov- 
TiQ  riaav  could  hardly  be  translated  otherwise  than  "they  heard." 


NATURE  AND  LIMITS  OF  REVISIOK  97 

of  the  use  of  the  illative  and  argumentative  apa  or  up  olv  rath- 
er than  of  the  lighter  and  consequence-suggesting  olv ;  but 
even  here  caution  must  be  used,  and  a  very  close  regard  paid 
to  the  tenor  of  the  passage  before  we  introduce  alterations ; 
this  simple  fact  being  enough  at  once  to  warn  us  that  St. 
Paul  uses  the  simpler  olv  at  least  four  times  as  often  as  he 
uses  apa,  and  that  St.  John,  in  all  his  writings,  never  uses  the 
latter  particle  once,  though  he  uses  olv  considerably  more 
than  200  times.  The  same  caution  in  not  over-pressing  will 
be  found  necessary  in  reference  to  most  of  the  other  particles 
used  hi  the  New  Testament.  In  the  majority  of  cases  the 
general  force  of  the  particles  has  been  observed  in  our  Au- 
thorized Version,  if  not  on  princij)les  of  strict  grammatical 
precision,  yet  with  an  instinctive  feeling  for  their  essential 
meanings,  which  has  often  led  to  singularly  happy  render- 
ings. Still  the  cases  are  numerous  in  which  a  guarded  change 
will  bring  out  latent  meanings  that  may  have  escaped  the  at- 
tention even  of  observant  readers  of  Scripture.  To  take  a 
final  instance :  we  seem  fairly  justified  in  giving  to  the  aXKd 
at  the  beginning  of  John  xix.,  34,  its  stronger  adversative 
force,  even  though  a  negative,  which  usually  somewhat  mod- 
ifies this  force,  is  found  in  the  preceding  clause.  If,  then,  we 
turn  the  lighter  and  here  somewhat  trivial  "but"  into  the 
stronger  "  howbeit,"  we  just  call  up  the  interesting  thought 
that,  though  the  holy  body  was  to  all  appearance  dead,  yet 
that,  to  make  it  certain,  the  Roman  soldier  had  thrust  his  spear 
into  the  sacred  side,  and  shown  something  like  the  same  rough 
instinctive  mercy  which  had  been  shown  three  or  four  hours 
before  (ver.  29,  compared  with  Matt,  xxvii.,  48),  perhaps  by 
the  same  hand.  While,  however,  such  a  change  may  perhaps 
be  made  in  this  particular  instance,  it  Avould  be  undesirable 
to  adopt  such  a  translation,  say  in  chap,  xv.,  25,  or  any  simi- 
lar passage,  where  the  lighter  shade  of  the  meaning  is,  in  En- 
glish at  least,  more  natural. 

We  have  mentioned  a  few  instances,  but  the  cases  in  which 
greater  accuracy  might  be  attained  without  the  least  shock 


98       ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

to  the  general  reader,  and  without  in  any  degree  affecting 
Words  under     the  flow  of  the  English,  are  really  very  numer- 

viuculum  of  a  ■,        ■,  ^  n  -i  •   i 

prep,  or  article,  ous.  We  have  that  large  class  of  cases  in  which 
nouns  stand  under  the  vinculum  of  a  single  preposition,  and 
where  the  interpolation  in  English  of  the  second  preposition 
really  sometimes  gives  a  tinge  of  meaning  which  is  not  in 
the  Greek.  We  have  that  very  interesting  class  of  cases 
which  fall  under  what  is  technically  called  Granville  Sharpe's 
rule,  where  two  substantives  are  similarly  under  the  vincu- 
lum of  a  common  article,  and  where  the  incorrect  interpola- 
tion of  it  in  English  may,  in  some  few  great  passages  like 
Tit.  ii.,  13,  really  weaken  the  authority  of  a  weighty  witness 
to  a  catholic  truth. 

The  cases,  again,  in  which  the  force  of  the  article  is  neg- 
Articie.  lected,  or  in  which  it  is  needlessly  and  even  er- 
roneously inserted,  are  especially  numerous.  In  some  of 
these  we  really  sometimes  obscure  a  truth  of  deep  interest 
and  importance.  Let  1  Thess.  iv.,  17  be  an  instance.  Here, 
by  the  translation  "  in  the  clouds,"  when  it  ought  to  be  sim- 
ply "  in  clouds,"  we  mar  the  whole  wondrous  picture.  The 
first  translation  would  make  it  simply  a  being  caught  up  to 
the  clouds  above,  whereas  the  true  translation  suggests  the 
idea  of  the  clouds  mysteriously  enwreathing  and  bearing  up- 
ward each  company  of  the  faithful,  and  of  the  holy  living  ris- 
ing from  earth  as  their  Master  rose,  when  the  "  cloud  received 
him  out  of  their  sight." 

Lastly,  when  we  take  into  consideration  the  number  of 

Individual      passages  in  which  individual  words  have  been 

words.  inaccurately  translated,  and  either  some  doctrine 

affected  (e.g.,  Xovrpov,  Tit.  iii.,  5,  "  laver,"  not  "washing"),* 

*  In  this  particular  instance  our  venerable  version  would  seem  to  present 
some  trace  of  doctrinal  bias.  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  the  Genevan  Version 
all  properly  recognize  the  purely  concrete  nature  of  the  term  Xovrpov  (see,  in 
reference  to  the  termination,  Bopp,  Vergleichende  Grammatik,  §  815,  vol.  iii., 
p.  195 ;  Donaldson,  Cratylus,  §  267,  p.  473),  and  gi^-e  to  the  word,  at  any 
rate,  an  approximately  correct  translation  "foimtayne  (of  the  newe  birth"). 
The  Ehemish,  following  the  Vulgate,  gives  the  more  exact  "laver."    The 


NATURE  AXD  LUIITS  OF  REVISION.  99 

some  important  fact  obscured  {e. g.,  (I)ai'£pw6riyai,  2  Cor.  v.,  10  : 
every  man  will  "  be  made  manifest,"  and  laid  bare,  as  well  as 
"  appear"  before  the  Judge),  some  unwelcome  idea  called  up 
(as,  for  example,  by  the  translation  of  <^wa  in  Rev.  iv.,  6,  al., 
especially  Avhen  dijpioy  occurs  so  often  and  in  such  an  utterly 
different  sense),  or  some  striking  imagery  obliterated  (e.g., 
a(T7ra(Ta/iE>'oj/,  Heb.  xi.,  13  ;  they  were  far  from  having  "  em- 
braced" them:  as  Tyndale  and  Cranmer  rightly  mark  in 
translation,  they  did  but "  salute"  them  from  afar) — when  we 
take  all  these  numerous  isolated  cases,  as  well  as  the  classes 
of  instances  which  Ave  have  before  sjiecified,  it  seems  impossi- 
ble to  resist  the  conviction  that  revision  ought  certainly  to 
extend  to  cases  of  inaccuracy.,  but  that  it  also  ought  to  be 
subjected  to  restrictions,  and  that  each  individual  case  should 
be  estimated  on  its  own  merits. 

Besides  cases  of  definite  inaccuracy,  we  have  a  large  class 
Insufficient  ren-  ^^  cases  in  which  our  translation  is  insufficient 
deriugs.  ^^^  inadequate  rather  than  positively  inaccu- 

rate or  inexact.  Here  the  same  rules  mainly  apply  as  stated 
above ;  but  still  greater  care  is  required,  otherwise  the  whole 
texture  of  our  version  might  be  insensibly  altered.  Indeed, 
it  may  perhaps  be  safely  said  that  if  a  case  does  not  come 
clearly  imder  the  head  of  a  definite  inaccuracy  it  should  be 
left  untouched.  We  want  a  revised,  not  what  is  ambitiously 
called  an  improved  translation. 

Similar  care  will  have  to  be  used  in  reference  to  debatable 
Debatable  pas-  Passages.  Where  the  balance  of  opinion  either 
^'"ses-  -^^-ay  is  nearly  the  same,  there  prudence  suggests 

that  the  present  English  Version  should  obviously  be  allowed 
to  remain.  Even  in  important  passages,  such  as  Phil,  ii.,  C, 
where  the  judgment  of  modern  criticism  seems  clearly  to  pre- 
ponderate against  the  rendering  of  apTrajiiov,  adopted  by  the 
older  versions  and  retained  by  the  A.  V.,  we  should  yet  con- 
sider it  questionable  whether  any  change  should  be  intro- 

translation  ' '  washing"  would  seem  to  have  been  introduced  by  the  translators 
froraWicliffe. 


100     ELLICOTT  OJS^  EEVISIOI^  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

duced.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  interesting  and  diffi- 
cult passage,  Rom,  viii.,  20,  21 ,  where,  though  it  does  seem  re- 
quired by  the  general  tenor  of  the  passage  that  the  on.  should 
be  regarded  as  closely  dependent  on  the  preceding  IXtzHi  ("  in 
hope  that,"  etc.)  rather  than  as  causal  and  commencing  a  new 
clause,  we  should  still  hesitate  before  we  made  the  change. 
Even  in  a  yet  clearer  case,  where  there  does  seem  something 
like  inaccuracy,  and  where  a  change  would  certainly  seem  to 
cast  some  feeble  light  on  the  exegetical  difficulty,  we  should 
hesitate  before  we  actually  substituted  "  inasmuch  as  they 
were  disobedient"  for  the  "  who  were  disobedient"  of  the 
A.  V.  in  the  celebrated  passage  1  Pet,  iii.,  20.  The  grammat- 
ical certainty  of  the  clear  difference  in  thought  between  a 
participle  with  and  without  the  article  would  weigh  much 
with  us,  still,  even  here  we  might  not  feel  a  case  strong 
enough  for  an  absolute  change.  In  regard  of  the  translation 
of  TTvev^ari  in  verse  18  we  should  not  be  so  sensitive,  as  here 
the  insertion  of  the  r^  is  clearly  against  evidence,  and  the 
translation  would  have  to  follow  the  true  text.  In  all  such 
debatable  passages,  then,  prudence  would  seem  to  suggest 
the  maintenance  of  the  present  version,  though  the  altern- 
ative rendering  might  most  properly  be  placed  in  the  mar- 
gin. And  if  in  these  greater  passages,  so,  certainly,  would  it 
seem  desirable  to  leave  the  text  untouched  in  passages  of 
minor  importance,  such,  for  example,  as  Luke  ii.,  49,  h  rdlg 
Tov  Tlarpoc  fiov  (house,  or  things?),  John  v.,  39,  kpEwart  (pres- 
ent, or  imperative?),  John  xii,,  6,  kjouaTaZtv  (bare,  or  pur- 
loined?), Col.  i,,  15,  Trpw-o-ococ  7ra<T?/e  Kriaewe  ("  of  every  crea- 
ture," or  "  before  every  creature  ?"),  In  all  such  passages, 
where  the  arguments  are  nearly  in  equipoise,  conservative 
principles  might  judiciously  be  allowed  to  prevail. 

But  in  passages  where  there  is  an  inconsistency  of  render- 
inconsistency  of  i"g>  it  would  seem  proper  to  act  with  greater 
renderings.  freedom.  While  we  may  rightly  recognize  and 
maintain  the  general  principle  of  our  own  version,  and,  in- 
deed, of  some  of  the  earlier  versions,  viz,,  in  preserving  a  free- 


NATURE  AND  LIMITS  OF  REVISION.  101 

dom  as  to  the  rendering  of  the  same  Greek  word,  we  can 
hardly  defend  the  varied  translations  of  the  same  words  that 
are  found  in  our  version  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels.  There  is 
certainly  force  in  the  remark  of  Archbishop  Trench,  that,  in 
cases  of  similarity  of  language  in  the  Greek,  as,  for  instance, 
in  the  case  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  and  the  Epistle 
to  the  Colossians,  a  careful  version  ought  in  some  degree  to 
reproduce  the  interesting  phenomenon  of  the  similarity  of 
words  and  expressions  in  the  original.*  Here,  then,  there 
really  seems  valid  reason  for  a  reconsideration  of  the  great 
variety  of  rendering  which  we  find  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion, and  for  the  belief  that  not  only  in  these  more  general 
instances,  but  in  the  case  of  particular  words,  much  improve- 
ment might  properly  be  introduced.  No  plea  for  freedom 
can  fully  justify  us  in  retaining  all  the  seventeen  different  ren- 
derings of  Ka-apyiu),  when  the  word  itself  is  only  used  about 
twenty-seven  times  in  all,  or  the  nine  different  renderings  of 
^i)\6u)  out  of  a  total  of  twelve  passages ;  and  that  these  are 
not  isolated  or  extreme  cases  will  be  seen  by  any  one  who 
will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  the  various  translations  that 
are  given  to  almost  any  woi'd  of  fairly  common  use  in  the 
Greek  Testament.  We  advise  any  one  who  may  feel  a  doubt 
on  this  subject  to  look  into  a  useful  work  called  T7ie  Engllsh- 
mmi's  Greek  Concordance  of  the  JVeio  Testamejit,  and  to  judge 
for  himself  f     Here,  at  any  rate,  revision  would  be  not  only 

*  See  Eev.  of  Authorized  Version,  p^Sfr,  where  examples  are  given  of  need- 
less changes  in  rendering  in  the  case  of  some  woi'ds  common  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians  and  Epistle  to  the  Colossians — e.  51.,  svipyfia,  Eph.  i.,  19, 
Col.  ii.,  12  ;  raneivo(ppo(Tvv7],  Eph.  iv.,  2,  Col.  iii.,  12 ;  <TVfil3ij3aZ6fi£vov,  Eph. 
iv.,  16,  Col.  ii.,  19.  To  which  we  may  add  dcrsXyeia,  2  Pet.  ii.,  7,  Jude  4 ; 
Kvpiorrjc,  2  Pet.  ii.,  10,  Jude  8  (the  margin  of  the  fonner  passage,  however, 
gives  also  "dominion,"  as  in  the  latter  passage);  and  the  really  perverse 
change  of  rendering  in  Io^oq,  2  Pet.  ii.,  17,  Jude  13,  and  that  in  a  clause 
where  to  the  extent  of  eight  continuous  words  St.  Peter  and  St.  Jude  are  ab- 
solutely identical.  These  are  cases  in  which,  with  the  greatest  desire  to 
make  as  few  changes  as  possible,  hardly  any  reviser  could  forbear  suggesting 
a  change  in  one  of  the  two  synonyms  thus  found  in  identical  passages. 

t  This  useful  work  is  better  known  to  scholars  and  interpreters  than  to 
the  general  student.     It  had,  however,  reached  a  third  edition  in  1860.     The 


r? 


102     ELLICOTT  ON  BEVISIOF  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

desirable,  but  necessary.  Yet  here  also  caution  would  be  re- 
quired. No  mere  mechanical  uniformity  of  translation  is  for 
one  moment  to  be  advocated.  The  word  that  most  faithful- 
ly repi-esents  the  meaning  of  the  passage  under  considera- 
tion is  the  word  to  be  used  and  to  be  maintained,  without 
any  reference  to  the  mere  fact  of  its  having  been  used  or  not 
having  been  used  in  other  passages  where  the  same  Greek 
word  may  have  occurred.  Where,  however,  not  only  the 
Greek  word  is  the  same,  but  the  tenor  and  context  of  the 
passage  is  the  same,  there  variation  is  not  only  undesirable, 
but  even  unfaithful.  It  is  only,  then,  in  clear  cases  that  this 
form  of  revision  should  be  applied,  but  there  it  should  be  ap- 
plied without  hesitation. 

The  last  class  of  cases  in  which  revision  seems  necessary 
Obscure  ren-  ^^  wlicrc  wc  find  obscurity,  whether  due  to  the 
deimgs.  j^Q^^  antiquated  meaning  of  the  English  words, 

or  to  the  difficulty  or  ambiguity  of  the  original  Greek. 

There  are  a  few  cases  of  the  latter  kind  in  which  the  re- 
visers of  1611  seem  to  have  studiously  left  the  difficulty  as 
they  found  it,  and  to  have  made  the  English  only  too  faith- 
ful a  rendering  of  the  Greek.*    Such  a  verse,  for  instance,  as 

plan  of  the  work  is  very  simple.  The  Greek  word  is  given,  and  under  it  the 
passages  where  it  is  used ;  but  the  passages  so  cited  are  not,  as  in  Bruder's 
Concordance,  in  Greek,  but  in  English,  and  in  the  words  of  the  Authorized 
Version.  The  student  can  thus  see  at  a  glance  not  only  how  many  times  a 
word  is  used  in  the  original,  but  how  it  is  translated  in  each  passage.  The 
judgment  that  a  sober  insjiection  of  this  volume  would  lead  to  would  seem  to 
be  this — that,  as  a  general  rule,  the  A'ariations  of  rendering  in  our  version  are 
certainly  numerous,  and  even  in  excess ;  but  that,  in  the  great  majority  of 
cases,  the  meaning  directly  or  indirectly  conveyed  by  the  context  has  been 
felt  and  recognized,  and  the  English  word  chosen  accordingly. 

*  It  is  very  doubtful  how  far  such  a  principle  as  this  can  be  justified,  viz., 
of  leaving  the  English  translation  in  the  same  state  of  ambiguity  as  the 
Greek,  so  that,  if  two  meanings  should  be  fairly  compatible  with  the  words 
of  the  original,  they  should  be  equally  so  with  the  words  of  the  translation. 
It  may  be  urged  that  it  is  literally  faithful ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  must 
be  felt  to  be  an  evasion.  Let  us  take  an  instance.  In  the  very  doubtful 
words,  John  i.,  9,  ■i'}v  to  (j>wg  to  dXr/Oivov,  o  (puiri^ii  jravra  dvdpwKov  ipxofit- 
vov  iiQ  Tov  Kofffiov,  there  are  obviously  three  constructions  possible.  Either 
ipXOjjLtvov  may  be  joined  (1)  with  vv  as  a  sort  of  resolved  imperfect,  or  (2) 


NATURE  AND  LIMITS  OF  REVISION.  103 

verse  30  of  1  Cor.  vii.,  can  hardly  convey  any  meaning  what- 
ever to  the  English  reader,  whereas  by  the  simple  insertion 
of  the  word  "  daughter"  in  italics  after  the  word  "  virgin" 
some  clew  to  the  meaning  of  the  verse  is  at  once  given.  Col. 
ii.,  23  is  perhaps  another  instance.  In  such  cases,  however, 
two  good  rules  must  be  systematically  followed.  First,  the 
translator  must  be  careful  not  to  pass  into  the  province  of 
the  interpreter,  and  to  give  a  paraphrase  instead  of  a  faithful 
rendering.  All  that  he  can  or  ought  to  do  is,  by  some  words 
in  italics,  or  some  happy  choice  of  expression  or  subtle  change 
of  collocation,  to  make  the  probable  meaning  of  the  Greek  as 
clear  and  appreciable  as  the  nature  of  the  passage  will  ad- 
mit. Secondly,  if  there  be  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  words,  one  or  more  of  the  alternative  render- 
ings should  be  placed  in  the  margin. 

In  the  case  of  archaisms  which- tend  to  obscure  the  mean- 
Archaisms,  if  ob-  ing,  revision  should  certainly  be  adopted.    But 

scure,  should  be  ,  ^ 

removed.  here  tliis  Very  obvioiis  rule  should  be  followed : 

archaisms  should  be  removed,  not  wherever  they  occur,  sim- 
ply because  they  are  archaisms,  but  in  those  cases  only  where 
they  leave  the  general  reader  in  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  words  or  passage.  For  instance,  few  general  readers  or 
hearers  know  what  St.  Paul  means  when  he  tells  the  Corinthi- 
ans that  he  knows  "nothing  by  himself"  (1  Cor,  iv,,  4),  or 

with  dvOpwirov  as  a  tertiary  predicate  (see  Donaldson,  Greek  Grammar,  § 
489  seq.),  or  (3)  with  <puiQ  as  a  secondary  predicate  (see  Donaldson,  New 
Craii/lus,  §  304,  or  Greek  Grammar,  §  43G  seq.)-  Assuming — which  may  be 
assumed — that  the  choice  mainly  lies  between  (2)  and  (3),  are  we  to  adopt  a 
translation  which  would  leave  the  English  as  doubtful  as  to  structure  as  the 
Greek,  e.  (/.,"'  every  man  coming  into  the  world"  (so  the  Five  Clergymen),  or 
are  we  to  make  the  meaning  distinct  by  translating  either  according  to  (2), 
"when  he  cometh  into  the  world"  (the  A.V.  is  inexact),  or  according  to  (3), 
"by  comhig  into  the  world" — "i.  e.,  by  the  Word's  coming  into  the  world  ?'' 
The  answer  is  not  easy.  The  decision,  however,  of  most  interpreters  would, 
we  tliink,  be  this  :  Do  not  adopt  the  evasive  translation,  but  place  one  of  the 
two  latter  translations  in  the  text  and  the  other  in  the  margin.  The  result 
in  this  indi\'idual  case  would  probably  be  that  (3)  Avould  obtain  the  place  in 
the  text,  and  that  (2)  would  stand  in  the  margin.  To  evade  is  never  satis- 
factory. 


104     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

would  suppose  that  the  words  in  the  Greek  were  ovotv  ifiavr^ 
avvoiha.  Here  a  change  of  preposition  ("  against"  for  "  by") 
would  be  quite  enough,  without  tm-ning  for  aid  to  the  wordy 
"  I  am  not  guilty  in  conscience  of  any  thing"  of  the  Rhemish 
Version.  The  "  by  myself"  is  found  in  all  the  old  versions, 
and  is  an  heir-loom  from  Tyndale.  It  would  still  be  under- 
stood in  some  parts  of  England,  but  is  certainly  misunder- 
stood by  the  majority  of  English  readers.  The  often-quoted 
"took  up  our  carriages"  of  Acts  xxi.,  15  is  another  instance. 
Here  the  archaism  has  no  such  pedigree  as  the  former,  but 
was  due  to  the  last  revision:  Tyndale's  rendering  is  "we 
made  ourselves  ready,"  which  under  Coverdale's  hand  be- 
came the  very  vague  "  were  ready."  Cranmer,  followed  by 
the  Bishops'  Bible,  adopts  the  not  very  felicitous  "  we  took 
up  our  burdens ;"  the  Genevan  the  more  exact  but  certainly 
homely  "  we  trussed  up  our  fardels ;"  while  the  Rhemish 
comes  very  badly  out  of  it  with  the  frigid  and  scarcely  accu- 
rate "  being  prepared,"  due  to  the  "  prseparati"  of  the  Vul- 
gate. Tyndale's  rendering  is  really,  perhaps,  the  best  of 
those  already  given,  and  has  on  its  side,  what  perhaps  its  au- 
thor was  little  aware  of,  the  authority  of  the  venerable  Syri- 
ac  Version.  Many  similar  instances  might  be  cited,  such,  for 
example,  as  Matt,  vi.,  25, "take  no  thought;"  Acts  xvii.,  23, 
"  devotions ;"  1  Tim.  v.,  4, "  nephews;"  in  all  of  which  change 
is  clearly  required,  owing  to  the  change  of  meaning  which 
the  lapse  of  time  has  introduced  into  the  words.  It  may  be 
doubted,  also,  whether  a  passage  which  a  few  years  ago  was 
quoted  in  the  House  of  Commons*  as  a  mistranslation, "  not 
slothful  in  business"  (Rom.  xii.,  11),  does  not  really  involve 
an  archaism,  and  whether  the  "  busyness"  of  1611  did  not  ap- 
proach more  nearly  to  the  a-KovZ^  of  the  original  than  it  cer- 
tainly does  now.     There  is  a  little  doubt,  however,  in  the 

*  This  particular  passage  was  referred  to  by  Mr.  Heywood  in  his  speech  on 
Revision  when  moving  the  address  above  referred  to  (see  p.  14),  and  cited  as 
being  erroneously  translated.  See  the  speech  as  given  in  Hansards  Debates 
(3d  Series),  vol.  cxliii.,  p.  122  seq. 


NATURE  AND  LIMITS  OF  REVISION.  io5 

matter,  as  Tyndale,  by  bis  "  let  not  tbe  business  wbicb  ye 
bave  in  hand  be  tedious  to  you,"  though  showing  praisewor- 
thy exactness  as  to  the  article  (rp  ctttov^jj  \x)]  oKuripol),  has  ap- 
parently used  "  business"  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  now  used, 
and  which  a  popular  preacher  on  this  sermon  found  to  his 
cost  was  certainly  not  the  sense  which  St,  Paul  intended  to 
be  assigned  to  it  in  his  practical  and  ever-seasonable  precept. 
Love  and  zeal  in  the  hearts  of  the  very  best  of  us  are  ever  in 
danger  of  growing  dull  and  cold. 

We  have  now  concluded  our  general  survey  of  the  limits 

Concluding  re-  ^^  which  revision  might  properly  be   carried. 

marks.  -^y-g  jjaye  seen  that  not  only  where  error  is  plain- 

ly to  be  recognized,  but  even  in  cases  where  inaccuracy,  in- 
consistency, or  obscurity  may  be  distinctly  visible,  there  it 
would  seem  the  duty  of  a  faithful  revision  to  introduce  cor- 
rections. There  may  be  also  other  cases  hardly  falling  ex- 
actly under  any  one  of  the  classes  just  specified  where  an  at- 
tentive reviser  might  feel  that  a  change  was  necessary*  to 
bring  out  the  full  meaning  of  the  holy  original,  but  these 
probably  would  not  be  many,  and,  when  the  great  principle 
of  the  least  j^ossible  change  consistent  loith  faithfulness  was 
borne  in  mind,  would  often  be  reconsidered  on  a  final  review. 
We  may  fairly  assume,  then,  that  we  have  specified  the  lim- 
its beyond  which  no  revision  of  the  future  would  ever  be  like- 
ly to  go,  and  to  which,  if  the  revision  were  undertaken  by  au- 
thority, it  ought  certainly  to  be  restrained  by  definite  prelim- 
inary instructions. 

Into  the  minor  matters  of  the  spelling  of  proper  names, 
correction  of  doubtful  English  (Matt,  xvi.,  15  ;  John  ix.,  31, 
al.),  use  of  italics  (Col.  i.,  19  ;  Heb.  x.,  38,  al.),  punctuation  (1 
Cor.  XV.,  29,  32  ;  2  Cor.  v.,  19,  al.),  and  other  matters  of  detail, 
it  does  not  seem  here  necessary  to  enter.*    In  all,  the  same 

*  All  these  questions,  however,  are  of  importance,  especially  the  introduc- 
tion of  italics  and  punctuation.  In  regard  to  the  former,  a  very  careful  in- 
quiry would  have  to  be  instituted  as  to  what  are  to  be  considered  the  italics 
of  the  Authorized  Version,  if,  indeed,  the  "  previous  question"  would  not  have 

Mm 


106     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

general  principles  of  restriction  above  alluded  to  would  com- 
monly be  found  applicable,  but  as  the  likelihood  of  disturb- 
ing existing  prepossessions  by  such  changes  would  be  but 
small,  the  restrictive  principle  would  not  need  to  be  very 
rigorously  applied.  Perhaps  w^e  may  shortly  say  that  on 
the  first  of  the  cases  above-mentioned  (spelling  of  proper 
names)  but  little  change  would  be  desirable,  but  that  in  the 
last  (punctuation)  considerable  improvements  might  be  in- 
troduced. Even  here,  however,  caution  would  be  required. 
Punctuation  is  not  by  any  means  in  so  satisfactory  a  state, 
even  in  our  modern  historical  works,  that  we  could  presume 
overmuch  on  modern  theories.  Under  any  circumstance,  it 
is  to  be  hoped  that  no  toleration  would  be  extended  to  that 
objectionable,  though,  as  we  fear  our  own  pages  bear  witness, 
occasionally  serviceable  modern  mark,  the  dash.  The  revis- 
ers, we  think,  would  be  wise  to  make  the  Cambridge  edition 
their  standard,  and  to  adhere  to  its  punctuation,  unless  the 
exegesis  of  the  passage  clearly  required  a  change. 

"We  may  now  pass  onward  to  the  actual  aj^plication  of  the 
principles  above  laid  down. 

to  be  raised  as  to  whether  they  might  not  be  dispensed  with  altogether.  The 
edition  of  IGll  has  never  been  held  to  be  a  valid  authorit}',  many  instances 
occurring  in  which  supplementary  words  are  inserted,  and  not,  as  usually, 
printed  in  italics  :  see,  for  example,  Gal.  i.,  8,  9,  where  there  is  a  distinct  in- 
consistency in  printing  ("  preach  antj  other  Gosper^  in  two  consecutive  verses. 
There  appears  to  have  been  a  thorough  revision  of  these  additions  in  the  Cam- 
bridge folio  edition  of  1638.  Between  that  time  and  1769  many  additions 
seem  to  have  crept  in,  but  since  the  latter  date,  when  the  italics  w^re  again 
revised,  few,  if  any,  fresh  introductions  appear  to  have  been  made.  In  a  few 
passages  (e.  g..  Acts  vii.,  9,  "calling  upon  GocT^)  it  may  be  doubted  whether 
the  gloss  supplied  by  the  added  word  is  not  exegetically  incorrect.  In  the 
equally  important  question  of  punctuation  there  would  be  need  of  careful  pre- 
liminary consideration.  In  many  passages  (e.  ff.,  1  Cor.  xv.,  29,  32  ;  2  Cor. 
V. ,  19)  the  punctuation  depends  on  previous  exegetical  decision.  A  careful 
paper  on  this  subject  will  be  found  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  Oct.,  1868. 
The  fullest  information  on  the  subject  of  italics  w'ill  be  found  in  an  excellent 
treatise  by  the  late  Bishop  of  Ely  (Dr.  Turton),  entitled  The  Text  of  the  En- 
glish Bible  as  printed  at  the  Universities,  Cambridge,  1833. 


AMOUNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  io7 


CHAPTER  V. 

AMOUNT   OP   COKKECTIONS   LIKELY   TO   BE   INTRODUCED. 

"We  have  now  come  to  a  very  practical  question,  and  one 
Amount  of  that  Can  only  be  satisfactorily  answered  in  a 

change  an  impor-  .  ,  ,  ,  i  r 

tant  question.  practical  manner,  and  by  actual  samples  oi  re- 
vision in  accordance  with  the  foregoing  rules.  It  is,  indeed, 
a  question  of  primaiy  importance.  If  it  should  appear  that 
the  amount  of  change  necessary  to  bring  our  present  version 
up  to  a  reasonable  standard  of  faithfulness  and  accuracy  is 
really  not  so  great  as  is  assumed  by  popular  writers  and 
thinkers  on  the  subject,  then  much  of  the  prejudice  against  a 
revision  would  disappear.  The  question,  in  fact,  would  then 
not  assume  the  invidious  form,  Is  it  wise  to  tamper  with  our 
existing  noble  version  ?  but  would  simply  be  this :  With  such 
an  amount  of  change  before  us  as  the  foregoing  principles 
would  seem  to  involve,  is  it  wise  or  unwise  to  disturb  our 
existing  translation  ?  On  the  amount  of  change  the  whole 
subject  will  mainly  be  found  to  turn,  and  till  that  be  approx- 
imately estimated  all  dealing  with  current  objections  will  be 
futile.  Our  present  opponents — even  those,  it  may  be  said, 
who  at  least  ought  to  be  better  informed,  at  once  assume 
that  there  will  be  a  great  amount,  and  then  proceed  to  state 
all  the  evils  that  will  follow. 

"VVe  must,  then,  deal  with  the  question,  however  roughly. 
How  it  may  be  ^^  probable  amount.  But  how  can  this  best  be 
ascertained.  ^^^^  9  Probably  in  two  ways :  First,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  amount  of  change  likely  to  be  introduced  by 
grammatical  and  exegetical  considerations,  by  taking  some 
current  revision  made  on  general  principles  of  distinct  avoid- 
ance of  change  except  where  accuracy  required  it,  and  by 
making  a  calculation  from  actual  inspection  of  the  sum.  total 


108     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

of  corrections  that  would  be  likely  on  such  a  system  to  be 
introduced  in  the  "whole  of  the  New  Testament.  Secondly, 
by  giving  actual  samples  of  revision,  based  on  the  princi- 
ples of  the  foregoing  chapter,  and  checked  by  all  the  limita- 
tions Avhich  we  have  already  specified.  We  shall  then  have 
before  us  a  system  in  which  genei-ally  unnecessary  change  is 
avoided,  and  also  one  in  which  limiting  and  conservative 
considerations  are  still  more  allowed  to  prevail. 

For  a  rough  estimate  of  the  greatest  amount  of  change 
Amount  of  tbat  it  would  seem  reasonable  to  expect  in  any 
rev^fon  of  the  I'evision  of  the  present  day,  we  may  turn  to  one 
Five  Clergymen,  j^^j.g^^y  ^^g^^  -j^  reference  to  textual  change,  27ie 

Hevised  Translation  hy  Five  Clergymen.  In  this  work,  though 
change  has  been  very  freely  introduced  wherever  faithfulness 
and  accuracy  seemed  to  require  it,  yet  it  certainly  may  be 
considered  as  a  fair  specimen  of  a  revision  in  which  unneces- 
sary change  is  avoided.  The  amount  of  change  is  greater, 
especially  in  the  case  of  inaccuracies,  than  would  result  from 
an  observance  of  the  princij)le's  of  this  chapter,  as  scarcely 
any  instance,  however  slight,  has  been  allowed  to  pass  with- 
out emendation.  If,  then,  we  first  make  our  calculation  from 
this  particular  translation,  we  shall  probably  have  arrived  at 
results,  as  to  the  amount  of  change,  beyond  which  it  may  be 
considered  certain  that  no  careful  and  conservative  revision 
of  the  present  time  would  ever  advance.  We  shall,  in  fact, 
'  have  arrived  at  what  mathematicians  call  the  superior  limit, 
the  inferior  limit  being  either  change  only  where  it  would 
simply  be  impossible^  on  any  principle  of  faithfulness,  to  main- 
tain the  present  version,  or  no  change  at  all. 

Let  us  take  two  different  portions,  one  from  the  Gospels, 
the  other  from  the  Epistles,  so  as  to  form  as  fair  an  estimate 
as  we  can  for  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament.  If  we  take 
the  first  four  chapters  of  St.  John's  Gospel  and  count  all  the 
changes  (except  those  due  to  textual  criticism,  which  have 
been  estimated  already),  we  shall  find  that  they  amount  to 
about  1 72.     The  majority  of  these  changes,  however,  is  of  so 


AMOUNT  OF  COBREOTIONS  PROBABLE.  109 

slight  a  kind  as  regards  the  general  tone  and  rhythm  of  the 
verse  (insertions  of  the  article,  changes  of  jDcrfect  to  the  sim- 
ple preterite,  etc.)  that  they  would  probably  escape  the  notice 
of  the  general  hearer.  The  number  of  verses  in  the  four  chap- 
ters is  166. 

If  we  now  take  a  short  epistle,  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ga- 
latians,  and  similarly  count  the  changes,  we  shall  find  them 
about  167,  the  number  of  verses  being  149.  If  we  now  com- 
bine the  results  so  as  to  form  a  rough  estimate  for  the  whole 
New  Testament,  this  result  is  arrived  at — about  339  changes 
in  815  verses,  or  very  little  more,  on  the  average,  than  at  the 
rate  of  owe  change  for  each  verse.  Such  a  result  can  not  fairly 
be  considered  very  alarming  when  we  remember  that  this 
amounts,  on  an  average,  to  a  change  of  a  single  word  in  cer- 
tainly not  less  than  every  twenty.  At  any  rate,  even  if  it 
should  seem  alarming,*  it  may  be  considered  sufficient  to  dis- 
pose of  the  greater  part  of  the  current  arguments  against  re- 
vision, which  are  founded  on  the  assumption  of  a  far  greater 

*  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  and  certainly  not  unsatisfactory,  that  this  amount 
of  change  has  ah-eady  been  thought  very  alarming,  not  only  by  episcopal 
speakers  in  the  recent  sitting  of  Convocation  (see  The  Guardian  for  May  1 1 ), 
but  even  in  public  journals,  where  thoroughness  of  work  is  more  often  recom- 
mended than  purely  conservative  change.  The  fears,  however,  are  not  alto- 
gether well  founded.  In  the  first  place,  it  may  be  said  that  no  present  revi- 
sion for  public  use  would  be  likely  to  go  so  far  as  that  of  the  Five  Clergymen, 
on  which  the  calculation  was  based.  Still,  when  all  the  small  changes,  not 
only  in  the  text  and  translation,  but  also  in  the  italics  and  even  punctuation, 
which  would  almost  certainly  be  introduced  even  by  the  most  consei-vative 
revisers,  are  taken  into  the  calculation,  it  does  not  seem  likely  that  the  aggre- 
gate of  changes,  gi-eat  and  small  (the  majoriij  will  certainly  be  of  this  de- 
scription), will  numerically  be  much  less  than  lias  been  specified,  though  the 
whole  version  will  be  revised  to  a  decidedly  lower  key  than  that  of  the  Five 
Clergymen.  The  comparison  in  an  article  in  The  Times  (for  May  6)  between 
one  change  in  every  verse  and  one  note  in  every  bar  in  a  piece  of  music,  is 
hardly  fair.  In  the  first  place,  the  ratio  of  the  one  change  to  the  average 
number  of  elements  unchanged  is  very  different  in  the  two  cases,  and,  in  the 
next  place,  it  is  certainly  true  that  we  may  express  the  same  sentiment  by 
different  forms  of  words,  whereas  the  same  air  can  only  be  expressed  by  the 
same  sequence  of  notes.  After  all,  calculation  will  show,  as  is  indicated  in 
the  text,  that  such  a  standard  of  revision  will  only  involve  change  to  the  amount 
of  Jive  per  cent.     Can  this  be  thought  very  serious  ? 


110     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

j^ercentage  of  change.  When  it  is  quite  clear  that  no  revis- 
ion would  be  tolerated  in  excess  of  that  of  the  Five  Clergy- 
men, and  when  cool  calculation  shows  that  in  that  particular 
revision  the  amount  of  change  would  apjjear  to  be  about  one 
word,  and  that  often  a  little  word,  in  each  verse,  surely  it  is 
idle  to  call  this  recasting  or  remodeling,  and  to  argue  accord- 
ingly. 

It  can  not  be  pleaded  that  other  portions  of  Scripture 
would  show  very  different  results  to  those  derived  from  the 
portions  now  chosen.  In  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  in  the  work  re- 
ferred to,  the  amount  of  change  is  very  steady. 

If  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  had  been  translated,  the 
Final  amount  change  in  it  would  probably  have  risen  above 
on  this  basis.  ^-^^  standard,  but  this  would  have  been  more 
than  balanced  by  the  smaller  amount  of  change  in  other  Gos- 
pels, in  two  of  which  it  would  have  probably  fallen  below. 
If,  then,  we  may  assume  that  any  future  revision  would  cer- 
tainly not  overstep  the  limits  practically  observed  in  the 
work  referred  to,  we  arrive,  for  our  superior  limit,  at  this  re- 
sult— one  change  in  every  Jive  verses  due  to  textual  criticism^ 
a?id  about  one  change  in  each  verse  due  to  grammar  and  gen- 
eral exegesis.  But  this,  let  it  be  remembered,  is  the  superior 
limit,  below  which  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  any  revision  of 
the  present  time  would  certainly  fall.  If  every  petty  change 
due  to  every  cause  were  to  be  taken  into  account,  the  result 
would  be  as  above ;  but,  in  the  foregoing  estimate,  notice  is 
only  taken  of  the  greater  forms  of  change  due  to  textual  and 
grammatical  considerations. 

We  have  now  to  try  and  estimate  how  far  below  this  supe- 
Probabie         rior  limit  any  modern  revision  would  be  likely 

amount  in  a  H  ■,-,       r^^^  •  i      i        t  i  •    • 

new  revision,  to  fall.  This  can  Only  be  done  by  givmg  some 
samples  of  revision,  textual  and  grammatical,  based  on  the 
principles  of  the  last  chapter,  as  far  as  a  single  mind  can  do 
it ;  but  it  must  be  well  borne  in  remembrance  by  the  intelli- 
gent reader  that  he  has  here  only  the  judgment  of  a  single 
mind,  and  that  the  results  would  probably  be  different  in  the 


AMOUNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  1 1 1 

case  of  several  minds  in  union.  The  difference,  however, 
would  not,  perhaps,  ultimately  be  in  excess.  On  first  going 
over  the  work  the  amount  of  change  would  be  great ;  but  on 
a  reconsideration  of  it,  experience,  maturity  of  powers,  con- 
viction of  the  impossibility  of  following  rigid  rules,  and — best 
of  all  teachers — consciousness  in  many  passages  of  failure  and 
of  over-correction,  would  finally  reduce  the  changes,  on  the 
second  revision,  almost  by  one  half.  All  united  companies  of 
revisers,  whatever  their  work  may  be,  c9mmonly  begin  with 
timidity,  rapidly  advance  to  boldness  and  excess  of  change, 
and  end  with  caution  and  conservatism.  When  the  TrakivTpo- 
TTog  avpa  in  revision,  as  the  Greeks  call  it,  once  begins  to  blow, 
it  continues  with  all  the  steadiness  of  a  trade  wind.  It  does 
not,  then,  by  any  means  follow  that  a  mixed  company  of  re- 
visers would  introduce  in  the  long  run  more  changes  in  actual 
amount  than  any  one  single  scholar  of  moderation  and  sobri- 
ety. The  changes  introduced  by  the  company  would  un- 
doubtedly be  better  than  those  of  the  individual,  but  they 
would  not  be  more  numerous. 

The  portions  of  Scripture  chosen  are  the  Sermon  on  the 
Sample  portions  Mount,  and  four  of  the  most  difficult  chapters  of 

chosen  for  revis- 

ion.  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans :  the  first  as 

being  a  portion  of  Scripture  in  which  the  change  needed  is 
very  little,  the  second  as  being  a  jjortion  where  necessary 
change  reaches  a  maximum.  Except  in  cases  where  the  rea- 
son for  the  change  is  obvious,  the  princijDles  on  which  it  is 
made  are  shortly  specified  in  the  foot-notes.  The  changes 
due  to  textual  criticism  are  indicated  by  spaced  printing,  and 
the  reading  of  the  Authorized  Version  given  in  the  left-hand 
margin ;  the  changes  due  to  grammar  and  other  principles 
are  indicated  by  blacker  type,  and  the  words  which  have  been 
affected  by  the  changes  are  given  in  the  right-hand  column. 
The  amount,  as  well  as  the  nature  of  the  changes,  can  thus 
easily  be  seen.  It  may  be  added  that  italics  are  left  as  we 
find  them  in  what  may  be  called  (for  these  added  words)  the 
first  really  standard  edition  (Cambridge,  1638). 


112      ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

We  begin,  then,  w'ith  our  blessed  Lord's  Sermon  on  the 
Mount. 

ST.  MATTHEW,  CHAP.  V. 
cBiTioAL.          1  ^nd   seeing   the   multitudes,  he  gkammaticai,. 
went   up    into   the*  mountain :    and  a 
when  he  was  set,  his  disciples  came 
unto  him.   2  And  he  opened  his  mouth, 
and  taught  them,  saying,     3  Blessed 
are  the  poor  in  si^irit:   for  theirs  is 
the  kingdom   of  heaven.     4  Blessed 
are  they  that  mourn :  for  they  shall 
be    comforted.f     5  Blessed    are   the 
meek:  for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth. 
6  Blessed  are  they  thatj  hunger  and  which  do 
thirst  after   righteousness :  for  they 
shall  be  filled.     7  Blessed  are  the  mer- 
ciful:   for  they  shall  obtain  mercy. 
8  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  heart :  for 
they  shall  see  God.     9  Blessed  are  the 

*  Here  a  change  seems  positively  required,  not  merely  on  grammatical 
gi'ounds,  but  on  general  and  exegetical  grounds.  It  wjjis  ''''the  mountain," 
not  necessarily  "the  known  mountain" (De Wette),  but  simply  the  mountain 
near  to  which  and  on  the  sides  of  which  the  multitudes  then  were  gathered  ; 
TO  opog  TO  TiXrjaiov,  Euthymius.  The  article  is  certainly  not  used  indefinitely 
either  in  Greek  (see  Hermann,  on  Viger,  p.  703)  or  Hebrew,  and  almost  cer- 
tainly not  here  generically  ("the  mountain  country"),  opog  being  always  used 
in  the  N.  T.  to  denote  a  single  mountain,  and  ?/  optivi)  (Luke  i.,  3t),  Go)  the 
mountain-country.  All  the  English  versions  adopt  the  indefinite  article ;  the 
Anglo-Saxon,  however,  has  properly  retained  the  definite  translation,  "iHone 
munt."     See  Bosworth,^4.«(7/o-<Saa:on  Gospels,  in  loc,  p.  IG. 

t  This  verse  is  placed  after  ver.  5  by  Lachmann,  Tregelles,  and  other  ed- 
itors on  the  authority  of  the  Codex  Bezoe,  the  Curetonian  Syriac,  and  a  def- 
inite comment  of  Origen ;  but  it  is  almost  certain  that  the  authority  would 
be  considered  by  all  sober  critics  as  far  too  weak  to  justify  any  change. 

+  One  of  those  very  small  changes  which  will  often  have  to  be  made.  There 
is  really  no  reason,  except  it  can  possibly  be  that  the  insertion  of  "do"  was 
thought  to  bind  "hunger  &  thirst"  more  closely  together,  why  there  should 
be  a  change  from  the  translation  in  ver.  4.  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  the  Gen- 
evan similarly  vary  as  to  "which,"  but  not  as  to  the  insertion  of  the  "do," 
as  in  the  A.V. 


AMOUNT  OF  COliRECTIOXS  PROBABLE.  113 

CRITICAL,  peacemakers  :  for  they  shall  be  called  grammatical. 
the  sons*  of  God.  10  Blessed  are  they  children 
Avhich  are  persecuted  for  righteous- 
ness' sake :  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  1 1  Blessed  are  ye,  when 
men  shall  revile  you,  and  persecute 
you,  and  shall  say  all  manner  of  evil 
against  you  falsely,f  for  my  sake.  12 
Rejoice,  and  be  exceeding  glad,J  for 
great  is  your  reward  in  heaven :  for 
so  persecuted  they  the  prophets  which 
were  before  you. 

13  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth :  but 
if  the  salt  have  lost  his  savour,  where- 
with shall  it  be  salted?  it  is  thence- 
forth good  for  nothing,  but  to  be  cast 
out,  and  to  be  trodden  under  foot  of 

*  Probably  a  desirable  change.  The  distinction  between  "children"  and 
' '  sons"  may  usually  be  maintained  witli  advantage  both  in  this  and  in  other 
passages  of  the  New  Testament.  The  reference,  of  course,  is  to  the  vioQtaia, 
but  no  argument  can  be  founded  on  the  general  translation  of  this  word,  as  it 
is  translated  in  three  ways  in  the  A.V.,  viz.,  "  adoption"  in  Rom.  viii.,  15,  23; 
"adoption  of  sons,"  Gal.  iv.,  5  ;  "adoption  of  children,"  Eph.  i.,  5.  We 
may  remark  that  there  is  no  need  to  displace  the  article,  there  being  at  least 
two  good  grammatical  reasons  (the  nuncupative  verb  K\r]9!taovTai  and  the 
absence  of  the  article  before  Qtov)  why  it  should  not  be  expressed  in  the  orig- 
inal, though  presumably  latent.  It  may  be  added  that  throughout  the  para- 
graph the  translation  of  otl  is  maintained  as  in  the  A.  V.  No  doubt  oti  more 
commonly  gives  the  reason  (" because"),  while  yap  rather  confirms  ("for") ; 
but  to  press  such  a  principle  here  would  be  quite  needless :  comp.  ver.  3G. 
In  ver.  1 2,  where  on  and  yap  appear  together,  the  matter  is  more  doubtful. 

t  The  word  "falsely"  (iZ/fi^WjUfvot)  would  not  appear  if  the  translation  were 
made  from  the  text  of  Lachmann  or  Tischendorf  (ed.  7),  but  its  omission  is 
very  feebly  supported,  and  could  not  be  accepted  when  the  evidence  for  and 
against  the  omission  is  soberly  considered.  Meyer  is  evidently  influenced  by 
purely  internal  and  subjective  considerations.  These  have  their  just  weight 
both  here  and  generally,  but  few  would  deem  them  sufficient  to  make  up  for 
the  small  amount  of  evidence  against  the  word. 

X  We  have  placed  a  comma  after  this  word  for  the  sake  of  more  closely 
connecting  the  clause  with  the  words  that  follow,  and  so  of  thus  marking  the 
slight  change  of  ratiocination  involved  in  the  on  and  yap,  and  of  avoiding 
the  heavier  "because." 


114     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

cEiTioAL.      ToaQYi^    1 4  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world,   geammatioal. 
A  city  set*  on  an  hill  can  not  be  hid.  that  is  set 
15  Neither  do  men  light  a  candle,  and 
put  it  under  thef  bushel,  but  on  thef  a     a 
candlestick ;  and  it  giveth  light  unto 
all  that  are  in  the  house.     16  Even  soj  Let  yom- light  so 
let  your  light  shine  before  men,  that 
they  may  see  your  good  works,  and 
glorify  your  Father  which  is  in  heav- 
en. 

17  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  de- 
stroy the  law,  or  the  prophets :  I  am 
not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  18 
For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  Till  heaven 
and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle 
shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till 
all  be  fulfilled.  1 9  Whosoever  there- 
fore shall  break  one  of  these  least 
commandments,  and  shall  teach  men 
so,  he  shall  be  called  least§  in  the  the  least 

*  The  relative  is  here  omitted  with  Wkliffe,  it  being  really  a  principle  of 
some  importance  to  maintain,  where  possible,  the  translation  of  the  participle 
when  thus  used  without  the  article,  and  being  thus  what  is  called  a  secondary 
predication :  see  Donaldson,  New  Cratyhs,  §  301.  The  relatival  or  directly 
predicative  translation  is  found  in  all  the  older  versions  (except  Wicliffe),  and 
even  in  Alford,  Auth.  Vers.  Revised  {in  loc),  but  it  is  not  logically  or  gram- 
matically correct.  What  our  blessed  Lord  says  is  this  :  "A  city  can  not  be 
hid  when  it.  lieth  on  a  mountain."  The  words  that  most  neai'ly  say  this, 
with  the  least  possible  distm-bance  of  the  A.V.,  are  those  in  the  text.  No 
doubt  both  opovQ  and  Ktifxtvi)  could  be  more  literally  translated,  but  the  prin- 
ciple of  minimum  change  suggests  the  present  words. 

t  These  two  changes  seem  positively  required,  if  any  account  is  really  to 
■  be  taken  of  the  article.  The  slight  difficulty  that  the  reader  feels  is  not  so 
much  owing  to  the  translation  as  to  the  fact  that  a  bushel  is  not  one  of  those 
articles  which  are  commonly  found  in  houses  now. 

X  The  correction  is  really  required  for  perspicuity.  Nine  English  readers 
out  of  ten  think  that  the  "so"  refers  to  what  follows,  and  not  to  what  pre- 
cedes. Tyndale,  and  all  the  later  versions  except  the  Rhemish,  coincide  with 
the  A.  V.  The  Anglo-Saxon  and  Widiffe  both  properly  throw  the  "  so"  for- 
ward, and  make  it  the  first  word  in  the  sentence.  ' 

§  So  Widiffe  :  Tyndale  and  the  remaining  vereions  prefix  the  definite  arti- 


AMO  UNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  j  1 5 

oEiTicAL.  kingdom  of  heaven :  but  whosoever  gbammatioai,. 
shall  do  and  teach  them^iYiQ  same  shall 
be  called  great  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  20  For  I  say  unto  you,  That 
except  your  righteousness  shall  ex- 
ceed the  rig7iteous7i€ss  of  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case  en- 
ter into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

21  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said 
to*  them  of  old  time.  Thou  shalt  not  by 
kill :  and  whosoever  shall  kill  shall  be 
in  danger  of  the  judgment.  22  But  I 
say  unto  you,  That  whosoever  is  augry 
Many  ancient    with  his  brother  without  a  causef  shall 

authorities  omit  ■,       .       -,  /«  ,  i        •     t  -1 

without  a  be  in  danger  01  the  judgment:  and 
whosoever  shall  say  to  his  brother, 
Kaca,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  coun- 
cil :  andj  whosoever  shall  say,  Thou  but 
fool,  shall  be  in  danger  of  hell  fire. 
23  If  therefore§  tliou  bring  thy  gift  to  Therefore  if 

cle.  Consistency  seems  to  require  the  omission — "  shall  be  called  great .  .  .  . 
shall  be  called  least." 

*  The  translation  here  adopted  is  not  perfectly  certain,  the  ablavital  use 
("by  them")  being  grammatically  defensible  (see  Winer,  (7>-a»i»i.,  §  31,  10, 
p.  275,  ed.  Moulton  ;  Meyer,  Kommentar,  in  he),  but  not  exegetically  prob- 
able, the  clause  "but  I  say  unto  you,"  ver.  22,  seeming  to  stand  in  such  clear 
parallelism  to  the  preceding  words.  The  Gothic,  Anglo-Saxon,  and  all  the 
English  A-ersions  adopt  the  dative  :  so  also  the  margin.  There  seems,  then, 
full  reason  for  the  change. 

t  The  words  "without  a  cause"  are  very  doubtful.  The  Vatican  and  Si- 
naitic  MSS.,  supported  by  several  versions,  omit;  the  remaining  uncial  MSS., 
with  the  Old  Latin,  Syriac,  and  Coptic  versions,  retain  the  words.  In  a  case 
of  such  clear  doubt,  it  would  seem  right  to  leave  the  words  in  the  text,  but 
to  notice  in  the  margin  the  doubtfulness  of  the  reading. 

X  This  change  is  necessary  for  consistency.  There  can  be  no  reason  for 
translating  the  £k  by  "and"  in  one  clause,  and  "but"  in  the  next,  when  the 
first  four  words  in  both  clauses  are  the  same.  The  Genevan  and  Rheviish 
alone  adopt ' '  and. "    The  rest  agree  with  the  Authorized  Version.. 

§  This  change  might  seem  at  first  sight  needlessly  minute.  It  is,  howeA-er, 
very  desirable  to  avoid,  as  far  as  possible,  giving  ovv  the  strong  illative  force 
which  the  position  of  "  wherefore"  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence  certainly 


1 1 6     ELLICOTT  OJV  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
CRITICAL,     the  altar,  and  there  remember*  that  ckammatioal. 

'  rememberest 

thy  brother  hath  ought  against  thee; 

24  Leave  there  thy  gift  before  the 
altar,  and  go  thy  way ;  first  be  recon- 
ciled to  thy  brother,  and  then  come 
and  offer  thy  gift.  25  Agree  with 
thine  adversary  quickly,  whilef  thou  whiles 
in  the  way  with  art  with  him  in  the  %vay;J  lest  at 
any  time§  the  adversary  deliver  thee 
to  the  judge,  and  the  judge  deliver 

seems  to  imply.  This,  as  we  shall  find  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  is  better  reserved 
for  (ipa.  We  are  also  preserving  the  same  position  for  the  illative  particle 
which  it  occupies  in  ver.  19.  The  exegesis  of  the  passage  seems  also  to  re- 
quire the  subordination  of  the  inference.  It  was  the  remembrance  of  the 
grave  punishment  that  overhangs  the  unloving  and  evil-speaking  that  sug- 
gests the  solemn  counsel  in  ver.  23.  It  does  not  so  much  directly  follow 
from  it  as  indirectly,  and  by  natural  consequence.  The  older  versions  pre- 
serve the  order  in  Auth.,  except  the  Genevan,  which  adopts  the  thoroughly 
correct  "  if  then"  (though  not  always  to  be  pressed),  and  Mhemis/i,  which  here 
adopts  "  if  therefore. " 

*  The  change  to  the  subjunctive  is  apparently  necessaiy  on  the  principle 
of  a  parity  of  moods  in  the  two  clauses.  Here  again  the  Rhemish  is  with  the 
change.  The  remaining  versions  maintain  the  indicative ;  but  in  the  first 
clause  Tyndalc  and  Cranmer  both  preserve  the  indicative,  and  so  far  are  con- 
sistent. The  somewhat  doubtful  question  as  to  when  the  indicative  rather 
than  the  subjunctive  should  follow  "if,"  is  answered  succinctly  and  with  very 
good  sense  by  Latham,  English  Language,  §  536,  vol.  ii.,p.  42.5  (ed.  4). 

t  "Whiles,"as  an  archaic  form  (see  Johnson,  Dictionary,  ed.  Latham,  s.  v.), 
may  be  properly  changed  into  the  more  usual  form.  All  the  versions  have 
"  whiles"  except  Coverdale,  which  agrees  with  the  form  in  the  text. 

t  This  slight  transposition  is  necessitated  by  the  changed  order  which  crit- 
ical considerations  seem  clearly  to  require  in  the  original.  The  emphasis  thus 
falls  more  on  the  tv  ry  65(^,  and  should  be  preserved  in  the  translation.  The 
place  of  emphasis  in  English  is  frequently  at  the  close  of  the  sentence.  See 
Bain,  Rhetoric,  p.  100.  Some'  valuable  remarks  on  the  importance  of  the 
order  in  an  English  sentence  will  be  found  in  Marsh,  English  Language,  lect. 
xvi.,  p.  347  seq. 

§  The  translation  of  fifirrort  is  by  no  means  uniform  in  the  A.V.,  the  tem- 
poral adjunct  being  sometimes  preserved  in  translation  (Matt,  iv.,  6),  some- 
times omitted  (Matt,  vii.,  G).  As  a  rough  rule,  perhaps  it  may  be  said  that 
where  the  idea  of  time  is  expressed  (as  here,  iwg  otov)  or  distinctly  implied 
in  the  sentence,  there  the  longer  form  should  be  used ;  where  it  is  only  lat- 
ent, then  the  shorter  form  "lest"  will  be  sufficient.  The  longer  form  here 
first  appears  in  Cranmer. 


A3I0UXT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  1 1 7 

oBiTioAL.      thee  to  the  officer,  and  thou  be  cast  grammatical. 
into   prison.     26  Verily  I  say    unto 
thee,  Thou  shalt  by  no  means  come 
out  thence,  till  thou  hast  paid  the  ut- 
termost farthing. 

27  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said* 

/^by  them  of  ,  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 
28  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  whoso- 
ever looketh  on  a  woman  to  lust  after 
her  hath  committed  adultery  with  her 
already  in  his  heart.  29  Yeaf  if  thy  aud 
right  eye  oflend  thee,  pluck  it  out,  and 
cast  itHvoDi  thee:  for  it  is  profitable 
for  thee  that  one  of  thy  members 
should  perish,  and  not  that  thy  whole 
body  should  be  cast  into  hell.  30  And 
if  thy  right  hand  ofl:end  thee,  cut  it 
off,  and  cast  it  from  thee:  for  it  is 
profitable  for  thee  that  one  of  thy 
members  should  perish,  and  not  that 

should  be  cast  thy   whole   body   should   go|  into 

hell.    31  It  hath  also§  been  said,Who-  it  hath  been 
soever  shall  put  away  his  wife,  let  him 

*  The  reading  of  the  text  is  supported  by  very  distinctly  preponderating 
evidence.  The  Curetonian  Syriac  and  Vulgate  are  among  the  minority,  but 
their  evidence  can  not  tuni  the  scale. 

t  This  is  not  a  certain  correction,  as  perhaps  it  is  nearly  as  much  too  strong 
as  the  A.V.  is  too  weak.  It,  however,  does  seem  to  bring  out  the  meaning, 
that  not  only  must  the  particular  sin  be  avoided,  but  even  the  first  motions 
of  it  in  the  heart  checked.  This  is  clearly  felt  by  Tyndale  and  the  Genevan, 
in  both  of  which  the  translation  is  "therefore." 

X  The  critical  evidence  for  the  text  distinctly  preponderates.  The  Rec. 
Text  is  apparently  an  emendatory  repetition  from  ver.  29. 

§  Not  a  certain  correction,  but  still  apparently  necessary  to  mark  that  this 
is  a  fresh  example  of  the  contrast  between  the  old  and  new  dispensation. 
The  particle  ck  has  here  the  force  which  its  etymology  suggests  ("in  the 
second  place"),  and  which  often  marks  its  use  both  in  the  Greek  Testament 
and  elsewhere.  Compare  Donaldson,  New  Cratylus,  §  15.5,  p.  284.  The 
change  from  "hath  been"  to  "  was" ( Alford)  does  not,  in  this  particular  case, 
seem  necessary. 


1 1 8     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

CRITICAL,  giye  \xQx  a  writing  of  divorcement,  gb^^atioau 
32  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  whoso- 
ever shall  put  away  his  wife,  saving 
for  the  cause  of  fornication,  causeth 
her  to  commit  adultery :  and  whoso- 
ever shall  marry  her  when*  divorced,  that  is 
committeth  adultery. 

33  Again,  ye   have   heard  that  it 
hath  been  said  to  them  of  old  time,  by 
Thou  shalt  not  forsAvear  thyself,  but 
shalt  perform   unto   the  Lord  thine 
oaths.     34  But  I  say  unto  you,  Swear 
not  at  all ;  neither  by  heaven,  for  it  is 
God's  throne :    35  Nor  by  the  earth, 
for  it  is  his  footstool :  neither  by  Je- 
rusalem, for  it  is  the  city  of  the  great 
King.     36  Neither  shalt  thou  swear 
by  thy  head ;  for  thou  canst  not  make  because 
one  hair  white  or  black.     37  But  let 
your  speechf  be,  Yea,  yea;  Nay,  nay:  commumcation 
whatsoever  is  more  than  these  coraeth  for  whatsoever . 
of  evil.  J 

*  An  important  correction.  The  participle  has  not  the  article,  and  must 
not  be  translated  definitely.  Whether,  however,  it  should  be  translated  ' '  a 
divorced  woman"  generally,  or  as  in  the  text,  is  by  no  means  certain.  The 
most  natural  A-iew  would  seem  to  be  that  aTToKiKvjxlvijv  is  what  grammarians 
call  a  tertiary  predicate,  and  that  thus  the  reference  is  to  one  unlawfully  di- 
vorced, as  above  specified.  See  De  Wette  and  Meyer,  in  loc.  It  must,  how- 
ever, always  remain  an  important  fiict  in  the  great  controversy  connected 
with  this  verse,  that  St.  Matthew  has  not  inserted  the  article.  Had  he  done 
so,  it  would  have  been  certain  that  the  reference  was  to  the  special  case  above- 
mentioned  ;  as  it  is,  the  utmost  that  can  fairly  be  said  in  regard  of  the  exact 
inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  words  is — non  liquet. 

t  Not  an  important  change,  but  apparently  desirable  to  mark  that  it  was 
oral  communication  here  refeiTed  to,  and  conveying  by  speech  the  convictions 
or  facts  asserted  either  affirmatively  or  negatively.  Comp.  Meyer,  in  loc.  The 
comment  of  Bengel  in  reference  to  the  repeated  "yea"  and  "nay"  is  very 
good;  '■^ est  rei,  sit  est  dicti:  non  rei,  sit  non  dicti."  Wicliffe  gives  as  the 
translation,  "  word ;"  Rhemish,  "  talke."     The  rest  as  Auth. 

X  On  the  translation  of  this  word,  see  the  notes  on  chap,  vi.,  13. 


AMO UNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  119 

cEiTicAL.  3s  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  guammatioal. 
said,  An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth 
for  a  tooth.  39  But  I  say  unto  you, 
That  ye  resist  not  evil:  but  whoso- 
ever shall  smite  thee  on  thy  right 
cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also. 
40  And  if  any  man  will  sue  thee  at 
the  law,  and  take  away  thy  coat,  let 
him  have  thy  cloke  also.  41  And 
whosoever  shall  compel  thee  to  go  a 
mile,  go  with  him  twain.  42  Give  to 
him  that  asketh  thee,  and  from  him 
that  would*  borrow  of  thee  turn  not 
thou  away. 

43  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been 

said.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour, 

and  hate  thine  enemy.     44  But  I  say 

.bless them    unto  you, Love  your  enemies,f  .  and 

thtit  ciirsG  • 

you,  do  good  pray  for  them  which  .  persecute  you : 

to  them  that    .  „  rni     ,  i       /i  a.  ■  c  .  .. , 

hate  you,      45  Ihat  yc  may  be  the  sons|  01  your  children 
^nse^yoifau^  Father  which  is  in  heaven:   for  he 
maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and 
gOOd,§  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  on  the  good 

*  Attention  may  be  called  to  this  translation  of  tov  QkXovra.  It  can  hardly 
be  doubted  that  this  form  "would,"  which,  strictly  considered,  implies  con- 
tingent determination  (see  'Bain,  English  Grammar,  p.  104),  approaches  more 
nearly  and  idiomatically  to  the  meaning  of  the  original  than  any  otlier  ex- 
pression. The  translation  "that  desireth"  (Alford)  is  hea^y,  and  better  suit- 
ed to  the  stronger  form  /SouXo/irti :  "that  wisheth"  is  weak;  and  "that  is 
willing"  too  purely  independent  of  all  latent  purpose  to  suit,  at  any  rate,  the 
present  passage. 

t  This  is  one  of  the  many  cases  in  which  the  two  or  three  oldest  MSS., 
with  the  best  cursives  and  some  few  versions  of  high  character,  are  opposed 
to  the  Codex  Bezae,  supported  by  all  the  second-class  uncial  MSS.  and  many 
versions.  Nearly  all  modern  critics,  in  both  cases  in  this  verse,  agree  with 
the  older  witnesses,  and  adopt  the  shorter  reading. 

t  See  note  on  ver.  9. 

§  Here  a  very  rigidly  accurate  translation  would  perhaps  mark  the  absence 
of  the  article  "on  evil  men  and  good"  (comp.  Wicltffe  "on  good  and  evil 
men"),  and  similarly  in  the  next  clause.     This,  however,  would  seem  to  be 


120     ELLICOTT  ON  BEVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
ciuTicAL.     and  uniust.     46  For  if  ye  love  them  gkammatioal. 

"  •'on  the  unjust 

which  love  you,  Avhat  reward  have  ye  ? 
do  not  even  the  publicans  the  same?* 

47  And  if  ye  salute  your  brethren 
only,  what  do  ye  more  than  others? 

publicans  so  ?  do  not  even  the  heathen  the  same? 

48  Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as 
your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is 
perfect. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

1  Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your 
alms  righteousnessf  before  men,  to  be 

seen  of  them :  otherwise  ye  have  no 
reward  of  your  Fatlier  which  is  in 
heaven.  2  When  therefore^  thou  doest  Therefore  wheu 
alms,  do  not  sound  a  trumpet  before  thine  aims 
thee,  as  the  hypocrites  do  in  the  syn- 
agogues and  in  the  streets,  that  they 
may  have  glory  of  men.  Verily  I  say 
unto  you.  They  have  their  reward. 
3  But  when  thou  doest  alms,  let  not 
thy  left  hand  know  what  thy  right 
hand  doeth ;  4  That  thine  alms  may 
be  in  secret:  and  thy  Father  which 

unnecessary,  the  general  sense  being  expressed  fully  and  fairly  by  the  text, 
especially  when  the  repetition  of  the  preposition  is  dispensed  with.  The  evil 
and  good,  and  the  just  and  unjust,  are  here  considered  as  a  whole  class  to 
whom  the  benefits  are  equally  vouchsafed.     See  above,  p.  114,  note. 

*  The  best  critical  editors  here  read  ovnog,  but,  as  it  would  seem,  not  on 
distinctly  sufiicient  evidence.  In  the  next  verse  the  balance  is  much  more 
decided,  the  Vatican,  Sinaitic,  and  Codex  Beza;  being  all  on  the  same  side. 

t  This  is  a  textual  change  in  which  the  state  of  the  ci-itical  evidence  is 
much  about  the  same  as  in  chap.  v. ,  44.  All  the  best  modern  editors  adopt 
the  reading  in  the  text :   tXtijfioavvtjv  was  a  very  natural  gloss. 

t  Change  made  on  the  same  principle  as  in  chap,  v.,  23.  The  insertion 
of  "thine"  in  italics  in  the  A.  V.  is  clearly  unnecessary;  see  below,  ver.  3. 
It  is  found  in  Tyndale  and  the  Genevan,  but  not  in  Cranmer  nor  in  the 
Rhemish. 


AMOUNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE. 


121 


seetli  in  secret  himself*  shall  rewardf  gkammatioal. 


/^openly.  thee  . .  J 


thou  prayest, 
thou  Shalt 


/^openly. 


A* 
5  And  when  ye  pray,  ye  shall 

not  be  as  the  hypocrites  are:  for 
they  love  to  pray  standing  in  the 
synagogues  and  in  the  corners  of  the 
streets,  that  they  may  be  seen  of  men. 
Verily  I  say  unto  you, They  have  their 
reward.  6  But  thou,  when  thou  pray- 
est, enter  into  thy  closet,  and  when 
thou  hast  shut  thy  door,  pray  to  thy 
Father  which  is  in  secret;  and  thy 
Father  which  seeth  in  secret  shall  re- 
ward thee  ..  7  But  when  ye  pray, 
use  not  vain  repetitions,  as  the  hea- 
then do :  for  they  think  that  they 
shall  be  heard  for  their  much  speak- 
ing. 8  Be  not  ye  therefore  like  unto 
them :  for  your  Father  knoweth  what 
things  ye  have  need  of,  before  ye  ask 
him.  9  After  this  manner  therefore 
pray  ye:  Our  Father  which  art  in 
heaven.  Hallowed  be  thy  name.  10 
Thy  kingdom   come.     Thy  will  be 


*  The  reading  is  here  very  doubtful.  On  the  whole,  due  regard  beings 
had  to  the  principles  of  the  aboye  revision,  to  the  state  of  the  evidence,  and 
to  the  possibility  of  a  conformation  to  ver.  1 8,  it  seems  best  to  retain  the  pro- 
noun. 

t  The  change  here  to  " requite"  (Alford)  is  unnecessary.  No  doubt  "re- 
ward" is  now  commonly  referred  to  the  idea  of  repaying  for  good,  and  has 
lost  its  neutral  sense  of  simple  requital :  with  passages,  however,  such  as 
1  Sam.  xxiv.,  17,  before  us,  it  does  not  seem  necessary  to  disturb  the  familiar 
words.  Here  again  is  a  case  in  which  the  principle  of  least  possible  change 
seems  to  influence  our  decision. 

X  The  omission  of  "openly"  seems  consistent  with  the  principles  of  this 
revision.  The  three  great  MSS.  (obsen^e  that  the  Alexandrian  is  deficient 
throughout  the  portion  now  before  us)  are  in  favor  of  the  omission  both  here 
and  in  ver.  6,  and  are  supported  by  valuable  cursive  MSS.  and  several  im- 
portant versions.     The  best  critical  editors  also  agree  in  the  omission. 


122     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

cEiTicAL.     done,  as  in  heaven  so  also  upon  earth  * .  *'^i;*!A''^J'*'^V, 

11  Give  us  this  day  our  daily  bread,  ii^  ^^eavea. 

12  And  forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we 
we  forgive     also   have    forgive nf    our    debtors. 

13  And  lead  us  not  into  temptation, 
.For  thine  is  but  deliver  us  from  evil.J    .  14  For 

the  kingdom,  ,„  n        •  ii     •       ^ 

and  the  power^  if  ye   forgivG   men   their  trespasses, 
for  ever!  Amen!  your  heavenly  Father  will  also  for- 
give you:     15  But  if  ye  forgive  not 
men  their  trespasses,  neither  will  your 
Father  forgive  your  trespasses, 

16  Moreover  when  ye  fast,  be  not, 
as  the  hypocrites,  of  a  sad  counte- 

*  It  may  be  thought  bold  to  change  such  familiar  words,  but  the  original 
Greek  seems  positively  to  require  it,  the  clause  yevrjOliTio  tu  diXr/fid  aov  being 
thus  preserved  in  more  solemn  parallelism  with  the  two  preceding  clauses. 
The  defining  words  do  not  thus,  as  in  Auth.,  form  in  effect  a  substantive  part 
of  the  whole  clause,  but  preserve  their  true  logical  position.  The  transition 
to  the  second  part  of  the  holy  prayer  and  to  our  earthly  needs  is  thus  also 
better  defined.  This,  however,  is  one  of  those  changes  which,  if  made  by  any 
committee,  would  provoke  the  most  unfavorable  criticism.  It  is  well  for  us, 
then,  to  have  samples  of  such  corrections  before  us,  that  we  may  make  up  our 
minds  on  the  subject  beforehand,  and  not  be  swayed  by  the  sudden  prejudices 
of  the  time  when  they  first  appear.  Some  striking  remarks  on  these  three 
great  clauses  and  their  import,  considered  logically,  will  be  found  in  an  arti- 
cle by  Hanne,  in  the  Jahrbilcher  fiir  Deutsche  Theologie  for  1866,  p.  507  seq. 

t  The  reading  is  very  doubtful  on  account  of  the  di\4sion  of  authorities, 
some  reading  cKpiifiiv,  some  a^iontv,  and  the  remaining  (among  which  are 
the  Vatican,  Sinaitic,  and  Dublin  Rescript)  the  perfect,  cKpijKafitv.  We  adopt 
this  with  the  chief  critical  editors.  In  the  case  of  the  concluding  words  of 
the  verse,  the  preponderance  for  the  omission  is  a  little  more  distinctly  de- 
fined, there  being  no  division  among  the  authorities  on  either  side  in  favor 
of  any  third  reading  (as  above),  and  the  Old  Latin,  Coptic,  and  Vulgate  join- 
ing with  the  three  most  ancient  MSS.  in  favor  of  the  omission.  These  words, 
however,  it  may  again  be  observed,  will  not  be  surrendered  without  much 
controversy. 

t  Here  it  is  perhaps  best  not  to  introduce  a  change,  although  the  balance 
of  exegetical  evidence  seems  in  favor  of  the  masculine, ' '  from  the  Evil  One. " 
Consider  Rom.  xvi.,  20;  Eph.  vi.,  16;  2  Thess.  iii.,  3;  1  John  iii.,  8;  and 
compare  above,  chap,  v.,  37.  In  both  these  cases  it  is  well  worthy  of  notice 
and  consideration  that  the  great  Greek  intei-preters  are  in  favor  of  the  mascu- 
line. Under  any  circumstances,  the  alternative  rendering  ought  to  be  placed 
in  the  margin. 


AMOUNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  123 

CRITICAL,  nance :  for  they  disfigure  their  faces,  okammatical. 
that  they  may  appear  unto  men  to 
fast.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  They 
have  their  reward.  17  But  thou, 
when  thou  fastest,  anoint  thine  head, 
and  wash  thy  face ;  1 8  That  thou 
appear  not  unto  men  to  fast,  but  unto 
thy  Father  which  is  in  secret :  and 
thy  Father  which  seeth  in  secret, 
^openly.         shall  reward  thee  ..* 

19  Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treas- 
ures upon  thef  earth,  where  moth  and  earth 
rust  doth  corrupt,  and  where  thieves 
break  through  and  steal :  20  But  lay 
up  for  yourselves  treasures  in  heaven, 
where  neither  moth  nor  rust  doth  cor- 
rupt, and  where  thieves  do  not  break 
your  through  nor  steal.   2 1  For  where  t  h  y J 

your  ti'easure  is,  there  will  thine  heart  be 

also.  22  The  light  of  the  body  is  the 
eye :  if  therefore  thine  eye  be  single, 
thy  whole  body  shall  be  full  of  light. 
23  But  if  thine  eye  be  evil,  thy  whole 
body  shall  be  full  of  darkness.  If 
therefore  the  light  that  is  in  thee 

*  The  weight  of  authority  for  the  omission  is  here  more  decided  than  in 
verse  4  and  verse  6,  and  the  omission  may  be  deemed  a  certain  correction. 

t  Accuracy  seems  to  require  this  very  trifling  insertion.  It  is  always  a 
safe  rule  to  observe  the  article  in  translation  when  it  appears  after  a  preposi- 
tion. Prepositions,  as  is  well  known,  so  often  obliterate  the  article  (see  Winer, 
Grammar,  §  19,  p.  157,  edit.  Moulton),  that  when  it  does  appear  it  may  safely 
be  pressed.  The  true  inteqiretation  of  the  difficult  words  Sid.  rijc  TtKvoyoviag, 
1  Tim.  ii.,  15,  seems  to  depend  on  a  due  recognition  of  this  principle. 

X  These  two  corrections  are  not  quite  certain,  though  very  probable.  Here 
the  Codex  Bezse  and  Dublin  Rescript  both  have  lacunaj.  We  are  thus  left 
with  the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic  against  the  great  bulk  of  the  second-class  uncial 
MSS.  The  strong  support  given  by  the  versions  to  the  two  older  MSS. ,  and 
the  agreement  with  them  of  the  valuable  cursives  marked  1  and  28,  seem  to 
justify  the  correction.     Comp.  A-erse  17  for  a  like  change  to  the  singular. 


124     ^LLICOTT  O.V  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

cEiTicAL.     \)Q  darkness,  how  great  is  that  dark-  gbammaticai,. 
ness ! 

24  No  man  can  serve  two  masters : 
for  either  he  will  hate  the  one,  and 
love  the  other ;  or  else  he  will  hold  to 
the  one,  and  despise  the  other.     Ye 
can  not  serve  God  and  mammon.     25 
Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  Be  not  care-  Take  uo  thought 
ful*  for  your  life,  what  ye  shall  eat, 
and  what  ye  shall  drink ;  nor  yet  for  or 
your  body,  what  ye  shall  put  on.     Is 
not  the  life  more  than  the  meat,  and  meat 
the  body  than  the  raiment?     26  Be- raiment 
hold  the  fowls  of  the  air ;  thatf  they  for. 
sow  not,  neither  do  they  reap,  nor 
gather  into  barns ;  yet  your  heavenly 
Father  feedeth  them.     Are   ye   not 
much  better  than  they?     27  Which 
of  you  by  being  careful  can  add  one  taking  thought 
cubit    unto   his   lifetime  ?J     28  And  stature? 
why  are  ye  careful  for  raiment  ?    Con-  take  ye  thought 
sider  the  lilies  of  the  field,  how  they 
grow ;  they  toil  not,  neither  do  they 
spin.     29  And  yet  I  say  unto  you,        ' 

*  On  the  reasons  for  this  change,  see  the  remarks  of  Trench  On  the  Auth. 
Version,  p.  1^.  In  this  same  verse  there  is  some  douht  as  to  the  reading. 
The  evidence  seems  in  favor  of  Rec.  {kuI  ri  Trtjjrt),  but  in  the  translation  of 
the  text  so  taken  the  A.V.  is  slightly  inaccurate.  In  the  concluding  words 
the  introduction  of  the  two  definite  articles  is  required  on  the  principles  of 
reasonfible  accuracy. 

t  The  word  in  the  original  is  on,  and  has  obviously  here  not  its  causal,  but 
its  explanatory  meaning  "  that."  As  Meyer  observes,  it  is,  in  effect,  equiva- 
lent to  lis  tKiXvo  on.     Comp.  John  ii.,  18 ;  2  Cor.  i.,  18,  al. 

t  Clearly  required  by  the  context.  The  idea  of  supporting  life  specially  by 
means  of  food  in  ver.  25  is  expanded  in  ver.  26,  and  continued  in  its  more 
general  form  in  the  present  verse.  All  the  English  versions,  however,  adopt 
the  current  view.  So  also  Bengel,  whose  comment  on  Luke  xii. ,  2G  is  "  banc 
(scil.  longitudinem  setatis)  nemo  cubitis  metitur. "  Here  again  the  alternative 
rendering  should  be  put  in  the  margin. 


AMOUNT  OF  COBRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  125 

CRITICAL.     That  even  Solomon  in  all  his  glory  grammatical. 
was  not  arrayed  like   one  of  these. 
30  But,*  if  God  so    clothe  the    grass  Wherefore, 

of  the  field,  which  to  day  is,  and  to 
morrow  is  cast  into  the  oven,  shall  he 
not  much  more  clothe  you,  O  ye  of 
little  faith  ?    31  Be  not  therefore  care-  Therefore  take 
ful,  saying, What  shall  we  eat?   or,  ' 

"What  shall  we  drink?  or,  Where- 
withal shall  we  be  clothed?  32  For 
after  all  these  things  do  the  Gentiles 
seek :  for  your  heavenly  Father  know- 
eth  that  ye  have  need  of  all  these 
things.  33  But  seek  ye  first  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  his  righteous- 
ness; and  all  these  things  shall  be 
added  unto  you.  34  Be  not  therefore  Take  therefore 
carefulf  for  the  morrow :  for  the  mor- 

^the  things  of  TOW  shall  be  careful  for      itself      Suf-  shall  take 
ficient    unto    the    day    is    the    evil    °"^ 
thereof. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

1  Judge  not, that  ye  be  not  judged. 

2  For  with  Avhat  judgment  ye  judge, 

ye  shall  be  judged:  and  with  what 

measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured 

^again.  to    youj     .     3  Aud  why  beholdest 

*  The  strong  ratiocinative  "wherefore"  oi Auth.,  though  found  in  Tynd., 
Cranmer,  Gen.,  al.,  can  not  properly  be  maintained  as  the  translation  of  the 
simple  5e.      Wicl.  and  Rhem.  adopt  "  and,"  but  the  copula  is  here  too  weak. 

t  The  translation  in  the  text  is  somewhat  heavy,  but  is  adopted  to  preser\'e 
a  consistent  rendering  of  fifptfivav  throughout  the  paragraph.  Tyndale  and 
the  older  versions  translate,  alike  easily  and  forcibly,  "  Care  not  then  for  the 
morrow,  but  (for,  Cov.,  Gen.)  let  the  morrow  care  for  itself."  Perhaps  this 
may  be  thought  one  of  the  cases  where  idiomatic  force  may  set  aside  verbal 
consistency. 

X  There  is  here  no  doubt  whatever  that  niTpi]9fi(TtTai,  not  avTijxiTpT)9r]CiTai, 


126     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

oEiTicAL.     tiiou  the  mote  that  is  in  thy  brother's  ceammatical. 
eye,  but    considerest   not  the  beam 
that  is  in  thine  own  eye  ?     4  Or  how 
wilt  thou  say  to  thy  brother,  Let  me 
pull  out  the  mote  out  of  thine  eye ; 
and,  behold,  the  beam  is  in  thine  own  a 
eye  ?     5  Thou  hypocrite,  first  pull*  cast 
out  the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye ; 
and  then  shalt  thou  see  clearly  to  pull  cast 
out  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's  eye. 
6  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  unto 
the  dogs,  neither  cast  ye  your  pearls 
before  swine,  lest  they  trample  them 
under  their  feet,  and  turn  again  and 
rend  you.f 

7  Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you ; 
seek,  and  ye  shall  find ;  knock,  and  it 
shall  be  opened  unto  you.  8  For  ev- 
ery one  that  asketh  receiveth;  and 
he  that  seeketh  findeth ;  and  to  him 
that  knocketh  it  shall  be  opened. 
9  Or  what  man  is  there  of  you,  of 
^if  ask  whom  his  son  shall  ask  bread, J 
will  he  give  him  a  stone?  10  Or  if 
he  ask         he  also  ask  a  fish,  will  he  give  him  a 

is  the  true  reading.  The  latter  has  only  the  support  of  cursive  manuscripts 
and  a  few  Greek  and  Latin  fathers. 

*  It  clearly  can  not  be  desirable  to  vary  the  translation  of  tKJiaXtiv  in  two 
consecutive  verses. 

t  We  have  removed  the  mark  of  paragraph  in  the  usual  editions,  and  con- 
nect verse  6  with  verse  5,  but  it  may  be  admitted  that  the  exact  connection 
of  thought  does  not  seem  perfectly  clear.  Perhaps  the  verse  has  a  limiting 
character :  Do  what  may  be  done  to  improve  others  with  all  humility,  but 
do  not  carry  it  to  such  an  excess  that  it  would  only  too  clearly  be  a  very 
provocative  to  profanation  and  rejection.     See  Meyer,  Kommentar,  in  loc. 

%  The  reading  is  doubtful.  The  critical  balance  seems  in  favor  of  the 
omission  of  idv,  and  the  change  of  ahfiay  into  aiTrjaii.  The  translation  is 
adjusted  accordingly,  the  particle  "of"  being  introduced  to  make  the  regimen 
a  little  more  perspicuous. 


A3r0  UXT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PR  OB  ABLE.  \o^ 

oEiTioAL.  sequent?  11  If  ye  then,  being  evil,  ceammatical. 
know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto 
your  children,  how  much  more  shall 
your  Father  which  is  in  heaven  give 
good  things  to  them  that  ask  him  ? 
1 2  Therefore  all  things  whatsotjver  ye 
would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do 
ye  even  so  to  them :  for  this  is  the 
law  and  the  prophets. 

13  Enter  ye  in  through  the  narrow*  at  the  strait 
gate :  for  wide  is  the  gate,  and  broad 
is  the  way,  that  leadeth  to  destruc- 
tion, and  many  there  be  which  go  in 
thereat:     14  Becausef  narrow  is  the  strait 
gate,  and  straitened  is  the  way,  which  narrow 
leadeth  unto  life,  and  few  there  be 
that  find  it,     15  ButJ  beware  of  false  Beware 
prophetSjWhich  come  to  you  in  sheep's 
clothing,  but  inwardly  are  ravening  they  are 
wolves.     16  Ye  shall  know  them  by 
their  fruits.     Do  men  gather  grapes 
from§  thorns,  or  figs  from  thistles  ?  of     of 

*  The  corrections  in  this  and  the  following  verse  are  for  the  sake  of  making 
the  meaning  more  distinct ;  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  old  render- 
ing, which  is  that  of  Tyndale  and  the  eai-ly  versions,  would  not  be  maintained 
in  any  revision.  At  the  same  time,  we  are  enabled  by  the  change  to  give 
reOXifiixEvr),  verse  14,  a  much  more  accurate  rendering. 

t  The  reading  is  here  very  doubtful.  The  second  hand  of  the  Vatican 
MS.  and  the  Codex  Ephremi  read  rl  (how!) ;  the  first  hand  of  the  Vatican 
and  the  Sinaitic,  on,  the  Alexandrian  MS.  (as  has  been  already  observed)  and 
Codex  Bezoe  being  defective.  This  would  seem  clearly  a  case  where  the 
principle  of  least  possible  change  might  be  allowed  to  decide  the  question. 

X  The  omission  in  translation  of  the  particle  Ss  tends  to  obscure  the  con- 
nection. It  would  seem  that  verse  15  is  to  be  connected  in  thought  with 
verse  14,  and  that  the  current  of  the  divine  thought  is,  "  If  so,  then  beware  of 
those  w-ho  might  add  to  your  difficulties  in  finding  the  true  path."  Bengel's 
comment  is  "  dum  ipsi  datis  operam  ut  intretis,  cavete  eos  qui  claudunt." 
At  the  close  the  pronoun  "  they"  is  perhaps  omitted  with  advantage.  The 
outward  garb  and  inward  nature  are  thus  kept  more  closely  in  antithesis. 

§  A  slight  change,  but  probably  necessary.     In  some  passages,  the  use  of 


128     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

cEiTioAL.  1 7  Even  so  every  good  tree  bringeth  gkammatical. 
forth  good  fruit ;  but  the  corrupt  tree  a 
bringeth  forth  evil  fruit.  1 8  A  good 
tree  can  not  bring  forth  evil  fruit, 
neither  ca7i  a  corrupt  tree  bring 
forth  good  fruit.  1 9  Every  tree  that 
bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit  is 
hewn  down,  and  cast  into  the  fire. 
20  Wherefore  by  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them. 

21  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto 
me,  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven ;  but  he  that  do- 
eth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is 
in  heaven.     22  Many  will  say  to  me 
in  that  day,  Lord,  Lord,  did  we  not  have  we  not 
prophesy*  in  thy  name?  and  in  thy 
name   cast   out   devils  ?  and  in  thy  have  cast 
name  do  many  wonderful  works  ?    23  done 
And  then  will  I  profess  unto  them,  I 
never  knew  you :  depart  from  me,  ye 
that  work  iniquity. 

24  Therefore  whosoever  heareth 
these  sayings  of  mine,  and  doeth 
them,  I  will  liken  him   unto  a  wise 

the  particle  "of"  as  synonymous  with  "from"  causes  considerable  difficulty 
to  the  general  reader.     See  especially  Luke  xvi.,  9. 

*  The  futurity  implied  in  this  verse  (jmkpav  iKcivrjv  ilin  Tijv  Trjg  Kpiirsiog, 
Euthym.)  seems  to  suggest  an  alteration,  that  marks,  somewhat  more  dis- 
tinctly than  the  ordinary  compound  perfect,  that  what  is  here  referred  to  is 
past,  and  belongs  to  the  past.  It  may  be  here  conveniently  observed  that 
"did,"  when  thus  used,  is  purely  aoristic  and  equivalent  when  united  with 
any  verb  to  the  English  preterite.  This  use  of  "do"  and  ' ' did"  for  the  present 
and  preterite  respectively,  will  commonly  be  observ'ed  in  three  forms  of  sen- 
tences as  particularly  serviceable,  viz. ,  emphatic,  interrogative,  and  negative. 
In  the  last  case  especially  this  compound  form  will  be  found  very  serviceable. 
See  especially  the  clear  remarks  and  distinctions  in  Pickbourn,  Dissertation  on 
the  English  Verb,  p.  25  seq. ;  37  seq.  (London,  1789),-  and  compare  Latham, 
English  Language,  §  510,  vol.  ii.,  p.  394  seq. 


AMOUNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  129 

cEiTicAL.     man,  which  built  his  house  upon  the*  Gi^AiiMATioAL. 
rock:     25  And  the   rain   descended, 
and  the  floods  came,  and  the  winds 
blew,  and  beat  upon  that  house ;  and 
it  fell  not ;  for  it  had  beenf  founded  was 
upon  the  rock.     26  And  every   one  a 
that  heareth  these  sayings  of  mine, 
and  doeth  them  not,  shall  be  likened 
unto  a  foolish  man,  which  built  his 
house  upon  the  sand  :     27  And  the 
rain  descended,  and  the  floods  came, 
and  the  winds  blew,  and  beat  upon 
that  house ;  and  it  fell :  and  great 
was  the  fall  of  it.     28  And  it  came 
to  pass,  when  Jesus  had  ended  these 
sayings,  the  multitudes];  were  aston-  people 
ished  at  his   doctrine:     29  For   he 
taught  them  as  one  having  authority, 
the         and  not  as  their§  scribes. 

*  Not  a  certain  correction,  it  being  somewhat  doubtful  whether  the  article 
with  this  particular  substantive  can  be  used  as  idiomatically  in  reference  to 
class  and  category  as  with  the  more  familiar  substantive  "sand,"  ver.  26. 
It  is  really  a  matter  of  individual  judgment.  That  the  English  article  can 
be  used  generally  we  well  know ;  the  question,  however,  is  whether  it  can  be 
here  idiomatically  so  used  with  this  particular  substantive.  It  may  also  be 
observed,  as  a  general  and  safe  rule  for  a  translator,  that  in  English  the  defi- 
nite article  (which,  in  foct,  is  really  the  unempbatic  form  of  the  demonstrative 
"  that :"  Bain,  English  Grammar,  p.  34)  is  particularly  definite,  and  does  com- 
monly and  most  naturally  refer  to  something  well  known  and  defined  pre- 
viously.    Comp.  Latham,  English  Language,  §  368,  vol.  ii.,  p.  208. 

t  The  change  to  the  pluperfect  seems  required,  as  emphasizing  the  ante- 
cedent fact.  It  will  always  be  observed,  however,  that  this  tense  is  one  of 
the  least  flexible  of  our  tenses,  and  often  gives  a  rigidity  to  a  clause,  which, 
in  a  general  narrative  especially,  mars  the  idiomatic  ease  of  expression.  It 
is  not  clear  that  this  is  not  the  case  here. 

X  Clearly  desirable  to  mark  what  we  know  is  so  constantly  expressed  in  the 
Gospels,  viz.,  that  our  blessed  Lord's  teaching  attracted,  and  produced  great 
effect  upon,  the  masses  of  the  people,     Comp.  Luke  xii.,  1 ;  Mark  xi.,18,  al. 

§  The  evidence  in  favor  of  the  reading  in  the  text  seems  distinctly  prepon- 
derant.    Not  only  the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic  Manuscripts,  but  the  best  cursives 


1 30     ELLICOTT  ON  BE  VISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Such  would  seem  to  be  the  amount  of  revision  actually 
necessary,  on  the  principles  already  laid  down,  in  the  impor- 
tant portion  of  Scripture  on  which  we  have  been  dwelling. 
Such,  too,  would  probably  be  the  average  amount  of  correc- 
tion that  would  be  required  in  the  Gospels  generally,  in  a  re- 
vision of  the  nature  contemplated.  The  diiferences  of  read- 
ing are  more  and  more  important  than  at  first  might  have 
been  expected,  but  the  exegetical  changes  few  and  uninipor- 
tant.  In  the  111  verses  we  have  19  changes  due  to  textual 
considerations,  an  amount  not  in  excess  of  the  estimated 
standard ;  but  in  these  same  verses  the  changes  due  to  gram- 
mar and  exegesis  are  only  (if  we  count  each  single  correction) 
about  56,  or  just  one  half  of  the  estimated  maximum  amount 
for  the  New  Testament  generally. 

We  now  pass  to  a  very  different  portion  of  Scripture,  in 
which  the  balance  is  the  other  way,  and  in  which  the  amount 
of  the  grammatical  corrections  is  considerable,  and  their 
general  character  of  by  no  means  slight  importance. 

We  subjoin,  as  before,  a  few  notes ;  but  as  the  changes  are 
numerous  and  in  many  cases  self-explanatory,  it  does  not  seem 
desirable  to  comment  on  every  individual  alteration.  The 
tenor  of  all  is  the  same — not  only  to  be  faithful  to  the  orig- 
inal, but  also  to  set  forth  the  reasoning  more  clearly  to  the 
general  hearer  and  reader. 

EPISTLE  TO  THE  EOMANS,  CHAP.  V. 

CRITICAL.        I  Being  justified  therefore*  by  faith,  T^er^foJ^Jbei" 
we  have      let  US  havef  peace  with God through  justified 

and  the  great  majority  of  ancient  versions  (always  very  important  witnesses) 
all  concur  in  the  insertion  of  the  pronoun. 

*  The  transposition  (1)  gives  the  requisite  prominence  to  ^iicatwQfVrec,  and 
marks  the  close  connection  with  the  concluding  words  of  the  preceding  chap- 
ter. It  also  (2)  places  the  "  therefore"  in  that  subordinated  position  in  which 
it  seems  more  nearly  to  express  that  idea  of  retrospective  reference  which  is 
usually  implied  by  the  ovv.  See  Klotz,Z)ei'an'Ms,  vol.  ii.,  p.  717.  It  may  be 
doubted  whether,  in  the  stricter  logic  of  these  epistles,  accuracy  does  not  re- 
quire that  the  "therefore"  should  not  give  way  in  many  places  to  the  more 
approximately  correct  "  then."     See,  however,  the  comments  on  p.  112. 

t  The  weight  of  evidence  is  so  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  reading  of  the  text 


AMO  UNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PR  OBA  BLE.  131 

cBiTioAL,     om-  Lord  Jesus  Christ:     2  Through ^^'^'^^'^^'^t'O'^I" 
whom  also  we  have  had  our*  access  have  access 
by  faithf  into  this  grace  wherein  we 
stand ;  and  we  glory  in  the  hoi^e  of  rejoice     hope 
the  glory  of  God.     3  And  not  only 
so,  but  we  glory  in  ourj  tribulations  tribulations 
also :  knowing  that  tribulation  work- 
eth   patience ;     4  And  patience,  ap- 
proval ;§  and  approval,  hope  :     5  And  experience  (6w) 
hope  maketh  not  ashamed;  because 

that  we  seem  bound  to  adopt  the  hortatoiy  tx<^H'^v  rather  than  the  simply  de- 
claratoiy  txoixtv.  The  liability  to  change  of  vowels  even  in  the  best  manu- 
scripts, technically  called  itacism,  must,  however,  always  leave  us — especially 
in  such  passages  as  the  present,  where  the  internal  arguments  for  the  less  sup- 
ported reading  are  very  strong — rather  in  doubt  as  to  the  positive  correctness 
of  our  decision.  The  whole  subject  of  the  orthography  of  the  New  Testament 
requires  very  careful  reconsideration.  See  Winer,  Grammar,  §  5,  p.  54  seq., 
edit.  Moulton ;  and  compare  Scrivener,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament^ 
p.  417. 

*  The  perfect  must  be  marked.  It  is  not  merely  "  habemus,"  but  "  habui- 
mus, "  viz. ,  when  we  became  Christians,  and  now  while  we  are  such.  As  Ben- 
gel  rightly  observes, "  prjsteritum,  in  antitheto  ad  habemus,  ver.  1."  Cranmer 
marks  this  but  very  paraphrastically.  The  two  other  changes  in  the  verse 
are  slight,  but  necessary.  It  seems  better  to  retain  the  same  translation  both 
for  Sid  and  for  the  verb  KavxaaQai  in  consecutive  verses.  There  is  no  doubt 
an  inconvenience  in  the  use  of  the  same  word  "  glory"  in  two  different  senses 
in  the  same  clause;  but  "boast"  is  an  unpleasant  translation,  and  "rejoice" 
is  not  exact.  The  insertion  of  the  article  before  ' '  hope"  (in  the  Greek  it  is 
latent,  and  elided  by  the  preposition)  seems  also  to  clear  up  the  meaning. 
Comp.  Heb.  iii.,  G. 

t  The  reading  is  doubtful;  the  words  "by  fiiith"  being  omitted  by  the 
Vatican  MS.  and  authorities  of  considerable  weight.  The  addition  of  the 
Sinaitic  to  the  retaining  authorities,  and  the  preponderance  of  the  versions, 
seem  to  justify  our  maintenance  of  the  Received  Text. 

t  The  article  seems  very  clearly  to  have  here  its  pronominal  force — ' '  der 
(uns  betreft'enden)  Leiden, "  Meyer.  So  also  in  verse  1 1,  and  not  uncommon- 
ly in  this  epistle  and  elsewhere.  Few  points  require  more  judgment  than  the 
adoption  of  this  pronominal  translation  in  English,  The  context  alone  must 
be  our  guide. 

§  This  translation  of  SoKifiT}  is  suggested  by  the  context.  The  word  may 
refer  to  what  is  antecedent  ("proving,"  Wicl.  ;  "probation,"  Rhemish,  fol- 
lowing the  Vulgate),  or,  as  here,  to  the  resultant  state,  and  to  what  is  conse- 
quent. Bengel,  with  his  usual  acuteness,  observes,  "  Sokijxi)  est  qualitas  ejus 
qui  est  SoKifiog." 


132     ELLICOTT  OUT  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

CRITICAL,     the  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our  g^ammaticai. 
hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  which  was  is 
given  unto  us.     6  For  when  we  were 
yet  without  strength,  in  due  season*  time 
Christ  died  for  the  ungodly.     7  For 
scarcely  for  a  righteous  man  will  any  will  one 
one  die :  yet  peradventure  for  a  good 
man  some  one  doth  even  dare  to  die.  some  would 
8  But  God  commendeth  his  own  love  his  love 
toward  us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet 
sinners,  Christ  died  for  us.     9  Much 
more  then,  being  now  justified  by  his 
blood,  shall  we  be  saved  through  him  we  shall  be 
from  the  wrathf  to  come.     10  For  if,  wrath  "^""^ 
when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  rec- 
onciled to  God  through  the  death  of  by 
his  Son,  much  more,  being  reconciled, 
shall  we  be  saved  by  his  life.    1 1  And  we  shall 
not   only   so,  but   we    also   glory   in  joy 
God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
through  whom  we  have  now  received  by 

the  reconciliation.  atonement 

12  For  this  cause, J  as  by  one  man  Wherefore 
sin  entered  into  the  Avorld,  and  by  sin,  and  death  by  sin 

*  The  exact  meaning  of  these  words  is  greatly  contested,  there  being  at 
least  four  different  shades  of  meaning  that  have  been  assigned  to  the  simple 
words  Kara  Kaipov.  Such  being  the  case,  the  more  exact  translation  of  the 
word  Kaipoe  seems  required  on  the  principle  of  faithfulness.  The  idea  that 
the  death  of  our  blessed  Lord  was  verily  at  the  critical  time,  is  thus,  perhaps, 
a  little  more  clearly  brought  out. 

t  The  article  prefixed  to  ooyj/C  must  certainly  be  noticed  in  translation. 
This  can  only  be  done  as  in  the  text,  or  by  translating  "  GocTs  wrath,"  the 
insertion  being  suggested  and  justified  by  the  antithetical  idea  in  verse  7. 
The  change  adopted  in  the  text  seems  to  be  the  simplest. 

t  This  change  seems  desirable.  In  a  connection  so  closely  logical  as  that 
of  St. Paul,  it  is  clearly  of  great  importance  to  maintain,  as  far  as  consistent 
with  our  idiom,  a  correct  translation  of  the  particles  of  inference  and  reason- 
ing. The  stronger  word  "wherefore"  (equivalent  to  "and  therefore,"  ac- 
cording to  Bain,  English  Grammar^  p.  07)  is  best  reserved  for  apa  or  apa  ovv. 


AMOUNT  OF  COBEECTIONS  FliOBABLE. 


133 


oEiTioAL.     death ;  and  so  death  passed  through*  grammatical. 
unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned.f    13  have  siuned 
For  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the 
world:  but  sin  is  not  imputed  when 
there   is    no   law.     14  Nevertheless 
death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses, 
even  over  them  that  had  not  sinned 
after  the  similitude  of  the  trangres-  Adam's  transgr. 
sion  of  Adam,  who  is  the  type  of  him  figure 
that  was  to  come.     15  Howbeit  not  But 
as  the  trespasSjJ  so  also  is  the  free  offence  (jbis) 
gift.    For  if  by  the  trespass  of  the  through  one, 
one,  the  many  died;  much  more  did  Sore  the  ^^  ' 
the  grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by 
grace,  which  is  by  the  one  man,  Jesus  one 
Christ,  abound  unto  the  many,     16niliny^ 
And  not  as  it  was  through  one  that  by 
sinned,  so  is  the  gift :  for  the  judg- 
ment came  of§  one  unto  condemna- was  by  one  to 
tion,  but  the  free  gift  catne  of  many  is 

*  It  is  hardly  possible  to  avoid  noticing  in  translation  the  carefully  chosen 
SiriKdiv,  especially  when  following  the  ihriKQtv  just  above.  The  pervasive 
power  of  death  seems  here  specially  marked. 

t  The  translation  of  the  simple  word  iJiiapTov  is  here  extremely  difficult. 
The  true  idea  "  omnes  peccarunt />eccan<e  Adamo"  (Bengel)  seems  to  be  best 
brought  out  by  the  omission  of  the  auxiliary.  At  the  same  time,  it  may  be 
admitted  that  the  idea  of  individual  sins  (see  especially  Theodoret,  in  loc), 
which  it  seems  also  theologically  correct  to  include,  is  not  so  distinctly  main- 
tained as  in  the  "  have  sinned"  of  the  older  versions.  This,  then,  can  not  be 
considered  by  any  means  a  certain  correction,  though  it  seems  preferable  to 
the  A.  v.,  and  to  the  "were  sinners"  of  the  Five  Clergymen. 

t  It  seems  necessary  to  maintain  a  carefiU  translation  of  Traparrnofia.  The 
translation  of  A.V.  f  "ofi'ence")  does  not  preserve  the  latent  antithesis  to  the 
viraKOT)  that  was  shown  by  Christ.     Compare  ver.  19. 

§  The  slight  change  is  to  mark  the  change  of  preposition.  Such  alterations 
would  not  be  introduced  generally,  but  in  passages  such  as  the  present,  where 
every  word  in  the  inspired  original  is  of  doctrinal  importance,  great  accuracy 
would  appear  to  be  required.  This  remark  may  be  extended  to  many  of  the 
changes  in  this  very  profound  and  difficult  chapter.  No  part  of  the  New 
Testament  is  more  trying  to  a  reviser. 


1 34     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

cBiTicAL.     trespasses  unto  justification.     1 7  For  ^®^j^^^"<'^i" 
if  by  the  trespass  of  the  one,  death  one  man's 
reigned  through  the  one ;  much  more  by  one 
shall  they  which  receive  the  abun-  they  abundance 
dance  of  the  grace  and  of  the  gift  of  grace 
righteousness,  reign  in  life  through  shall  reign 
the  one,  even  Jesus  Christ.    1 8  Where-  by  one 
fore,  as  through  one  trespass  it  came^  Therefore  as  by 

.  the  oflfence  of 

unto  all  men  to  condemnation;  even  on^judgmeM 

.    ,  ,  i  I    .  came  upon  .... 

SO  through  one  righteous  actf  it  came  by  the  righteous- 

,       .        .„        .  o  fc     ness  of  one,  (Ae 

unto  all  men  to  iustification  oi  hie.  free  gift  came 

-r-«  -ixi-iT-iT  i>ii.    upon  all  men 

19  1  or  as  byt  the  disobedience  oi  the  unto 

.  one  man's  diso- 

one  man,  the  many  were  made  sinners,  bedience  many 
even  so,  by  the  obedience  of  the  one,  so     one 
shall  the  many  be  made  righteous,  many 

20  Moreover  the   law  also   entered,  law  entered 
that  the  trespass  might  be  multiplied,  offence  abound 
But  where  sin  was  multiplied,  grace  abounded, 

*  Here  the  principle  of  faithfulness  seems  to  require  that  as  little  as  possible 
should  be  imported  into  the  context.  Winer  suggests  the  simple  introduction 
of  the  purely  neutral  airifit],  i.  e., "  cessit,"  "  the  result  was"  ("  the  issue  was," 
Five  Clergymen),  and  correctly.  See  Grammar,  §  G4,  2,  b,  p.  734,  ed.  Moul- 
ton.  The  common  supplement  is  to  Kfijia  lysvtro  for  the  first  clause,  and 
TO  xapiff^a  iyiviTo  for  the  second,  but  this  is  intei-pretation  rather  than  trans- 
lation. 

t  On  the  translation  of  diKalojfia,  SiKaioio,  SiKaiog,  and  SiKaioavvt],  see  the . 
prefatory  notes  to  the  translation  of  this  epistle  by  the  Five  Clergymen,  p.  ix. 
seq. 

X  Here  it  does  not  seem  necessary  to  change  the  "  by"  into  "  through,"  as 
in  verse  18  and  elsewhere.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  lay  down  any  rules, 
but  it  perhaps  may  be  said  that  though  in  certain  formuliB  (e.  ^. , "  through 
Jesus  Christ"),  and  in  passages  where  there  are  clear  or  even  latent  distinc- 
tions between  direct  and  mediate  agency,  there  it  may  be  desirable  to  use 
"  by"  in  reference  to  the  primary  agent  (Bain,  English  Grammar,  p.  55),  and 
"through"  in  reference  to  the  "causa  medians;"  but  where  there  are  no 
such  distinctions,  there  the  A.  V.  may  be  retained,  unless,  as  in  chap,  v.,  1,  2, 
consistency  suggests  the  change.-  To  carry  out  the  principle  ftirther  than 
this  (as  in  Alford,  New  Testament,  and  frequently  in  the  revision  of  the  Five 
Clergymen)  is  to  obliterate  so  far  an  idiomatic  usage  of  the  preposition  which 
was  current  in  our  earlier  literature,  and  is,  in  this  particular  instance,  radi- 
cally to  change  our  vei'sion. 


AMOUNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  135 

cEiTicAL.     ditl  much  more  abound:     21  That  as  gkammatioau 
sin  reigned  in  death,  even  so  might  hath  reigned 
grace    reign   through    righteousness 
unto  eternal  life,  through  Jesus  Christ  by 
our  Lord. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

1  What  shall  we   say  then?   are 
shall  we      "W'e   to*  continue  in   sin,  that  grace 
may  abound?     2  God  forbid.     How 
shall  we,  who  diedf  unto  sin,  live  any  that  are  dead  to 
longer  therein  ?     3  OrJ  know  ye  not.  Know 
that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized 
into  Christ  Jesus,  were  baptized  into  jesus  Christ 
his  death  ?    4  We  were  buried  there-  Therefore  we 
fore  with  him  by  our  baptism  into  baptism 
death :  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  raised  up 
from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life.     5  For  if  we  have 
become  united  to§  the  likeness  of  his  been  planted  to- 
death,  surely]]  we  shall  be  also  to  the  we  shaiT  ^L  ' 

*  Change  to  express  the  deliberative  subjunctive  (Winer,  Grammar,  §  41, 
4),  the  reading  of  the  Textus  Receptus,  £7rt/i£vov/z£v,  having  only  the  support 
of  cursive  MSS.,  and  being  probably  a  conformation  in  tense  to  the  ipovixev 
just  before. 

+  The  change,  though  trifling,  seems  necessary,  as  helping  to  direct  the 
thought  to  the  past  epoch  of  baptism,  when  the  death  took  place  (verse  3). 
The  Auth.  points  more  to  the  continuing  state,  which  is  true  ("in  baptism© 
e?  justificatione,"  Bengel),  but  not  here  the  prominent  idea. 

t  In  some  cases,  and  in  this  particular  foimula,  the  force  of  the  particle 
seems  obliterated.  Here,  however,  the  force  may  be  brought  out:  "Or,  if 
ye  do  not  recognize  this  principle  (verse  2),  do  ye  not  know,  etc."  (verse  3). 
See  Hartung,  Partilcellehre,  vol.  ii.,  p.  61. 

§  The  translation  of  the  A.V.  seems  actually  erroneous,  (TVfKpvrog  being 
connected  \Vith  (pvo),  not  with  ^vrevw.  In  the  latter  case  it  would  have  been 
<jvfi(pvTivToi,  the  verbal  fvTtvTOQ  being  a  recognized  foiin.  See  Plato,  ^epwi/,, 
vi.,p.  510. 

II  The  emphatic  introduction  of  the  contrary  aspect  by  means  of  the  aXKd 


136     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

oEiTioAL.     likeness  of  his  resurrection.     6  Know-  G^^nAiiokh. 
ing  this,  that  our  old  man  was  cru-  is 
cified  with  Aim,  that  the  body  of  sin 
might  be  destroyed,  in  order*  that  we  that 
should  serve  sin  no  longer.     1  For  he  shS'^nS^^ 
that  is  dead  is  made  free  from  sin.  freed. 
8  Now  if  we  be  dead  with  Christ,  we 
believe  that  we  shall  also  live  with 
him :     9  Knowing  that  Christ  being 
raised  from  the  dead  dietli  no  more; 
death  hath  no  more  dominion  over 
him.    10  For  in  thatf  he  died, he  died 
unto  sin  once :  but  in  that  he  liveth, 
he   liveth   unto   God.     11  Even  soj  Likewise 
reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to  be  dead 
indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God, 

^ourLord.      in  Christ  Jesus  .  .     12  Let  not  sin  through  j.c. 
therefore  reign  in  your  mortal  body, 

/^itin  that  ye  should  obey  .the  lusts  there- 

of. 13  Neither  yield  ye  your  mem- 
bers as  instruments  of  unrighteousness 
unto  sin :  but  yield  yourselves  up  to§  nnto  God 

Kai  ought  to  be  marked  in  translation.  The  formula  is  noticed  and  illustrated 
in  Klotz,  Devarius,  vol.  ii. ,  p.  93. 

*  The  insertion  of  the  two  words  ' '  in  order"  renders  the  passage  a  little 
clearer,  and  just  calls  attention  to  the  change  of  construction  from  the  par- 
ticle of  purpose  with  the  subj.  to  the  favorite  N.T.  genitival  infin.  of  purpose. 
See  Winer,  Grammar,  §  44, 4.  In  the  remaining  words  of  the  verse  the  more 
usual  translation  of  the  emphatically  placed  firjKtn  is  adopted,  and  the  em- 
phasis secured  by  placing  it  at  the  close  of  the  sentence. 

+  This  is  one  of  the  instances  in  which  the  A.  V.  would  probably  not  be 
changed  by  any  revisers  who  followed  the  principle  of  the  least  possible  change. 
It  may  be  observed,  however,  that  o  is  more  probably  the  cognate  accusative 
under  the  regimen  of  cnrtOavc,  scil. "the  death  that  he  died,"  and  similarly 
"the  life  that  he  liveth."  This  is  a  case,  then,  where  this  alternative  render- 
ing ought  certainly  to  find  a  place  in  the  margin.     See  above,  ch.  iv.,p.  116. 

X  The  application  of  the  principle  in  verse  10  to  the  readers  is  rather  ob- 
scured by  the  "  likewise."  So,  however,  Tyndale  and  the  older  versions,  eyi- 
CQ^iWicliffe  and  the  Rkemish,  which  follow  the  "ita"  of  the  Vulgate. 

§  An  attempt  to  mark  the  change  to  the  more  emphasized  aorist  imperative 


AMOUNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE  I37 

cRiTioAi.     God,  as  alive  from  the  dead,  and  your  okammatioal. 

'  _  .  those  that  are 

members  as  instruments  of  righteous- "''^'<^ 
ness  unto  God.     14  For  sin  shall  not 
have  dominion  over  you :  for  ye  are 
not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace, 
shall  we  15  What  then?  are  avc  to  sin,  be- 

cause we  are  not  under  the  law,  but 
under  grace?    God  forbid.     16  Know 
ye  not,  that  to  whom  ye  yield  your- 
selves servants  to  obey,  his  servants 
ye  are  to  whom  ye  obey ;  Avhether 
it  be  of  sin  unto  death,  or  of  obedience  whether  of 
unto  righteousness?     17  But  God  be 
thanked,  that  ye  once*  were  the  serv-  ye  were 
ants  of  sin,  but  ye  obeyed  from  the  have  pbeyed 
heart  that  form   of  doctrine    which 
was  delivered  you.f     18  Now  being  Being  then 
made  free  from  sin,  ye  were  made  tlie  became 
servants  of  righteousness,     19  I  speak 
after  the  manner  of  men,  because  of 
the  infirmity  of  your  flesh:  for  as  ye 
yielded  your  members  servants  to  un-  have  yielded 
cleanness  and  to  iniquity  unto  iniqui- 
ty ;  even  so  now  yield  your  members 
servants  to  righteousness  unto  sane-  holiness. 
tification.     20  For  when  ye  were  the 
servants  of  sin,  ye  were  free  in  regard  from 
toj    righteousness.      21  What    fruit 

Trapaariiffare,  "do  it  at  once,  and  decidedly."  This  change  did  not  escape 
the  vigilant  e^'e  ofBengel ;  "majorem  vim  habet  mox  aor.  1  Trapau-n]<yart." 

*  This  italitized  word  seems  required  to  mark  the  emphasis  that  clearly 
rests  on  the  r]Ti :  the  bondage  is  over ;  the  chain  snapped. 

t  Here  again  we  have  an  alternative  rendering,  "  the  form  of  doctrine 
whereunto  ye  were  delivered,"  the  relative  clause  admitting  two  or  even 
three  forms  of  resolution.  This  latter  is,  for  grammatical  reasons,  the  most 
probable  (see  Meyer,  in  loc),  and  has  in  its  favor  the  authority  of  Chrysos- 
tom.     Here  again  the  margin  woidd  have  to  be  used. 

X  If  an  attempt  is  to  be  made  to  express  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  dative  ry 

Go 


]  38     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

CRITICAL,     then  had  ye  at  that  time  in  those  grammatical. 

♦'  fruit  had  ye  then 

things  whereof  ye  are  now  ashamed  ? 

for  the  end  of  those  things  is  death. 

22  But  now  being   made   free  from 

,    sin,  and  made    servants   to   God,  ye  become 

have  your  fruit  unto  sanctification,  holiness, 

and  the  end  everlasting  life.     23  For 

the  wages  of  sin  is  death ;  but  the 

o;ift  of  God  is  eternal  life  in  Christ  through  jesus 

^  T       ,  Christ 

Jesus  our  Lord. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

1  Know  ye  not,  brethren  (for  I 
speak  to  men  that  know  the  law),  them 
how  that  the  law  hath  dominion  over 
a  man  as  long  as  he  liveth  ?  2  For 
the  woman  which  hath  an  husband 
is  bound  by  the  law  to  her  living  7ie>- husband  so 

i       T        -1^1        'Oil       1        Ti       T       T   ^°"S ^^ ^^ liveth 
husband  ;*  but  it  the  husband  be  dead, 

she  is  loosed  from  the  law  of  her  hus-  iier 
band,     3  Wherefore  if,  while  her  hus-  so  then     Mr 
band  liveth,  she  be  joinedf  to  another  married 
man,  she  shall  be  called  an  adulter- 
ess :  but  if  her  husband  be  dead,  she 
is  free  from  that  law;  so  that  she  is 

ciKaioavvij  (see  Winer,  Grammar,  §  31,  G)  it  can  only  be  by  this  adverbial 
phrase.  It  seems  proper  to  use  the  form  "in  regard  <o"  rather  than  the 
more  familiar  ' '  in  regard  of, "  as  the  writers  of  the  seventeenth  century  ap- 
pear to  have  drawn  a  distinction  in  meaning  between  the  two  phrases,  the 
former  implying  "  in  reference  to,"  the  latter  "  by  reason  of."  See  the  acute 
remarks  on  these  and  similar  forms  of  Marsh,  On  the  English  Language,  lect. 
xxix.,p.  GGO  seq. 

*  The  translation  of  the  A.  V.  is  here  actually  erroneous,  the  position  of  the 
participle  being  between  the  article  and  the  noun,  and  not,  as  the  A.V.  would 
suggest,  after  the  noun,  and  so  a  tertiary  predicate.  See,  on  the  three  kinds 
of  predicates,  Donaldson,  New  Cratylus,  §  301  seq. 

t  This  is  not  a  coiTection  of  any  moment,  but  seems  desirable  on  account 
of  the  verses  that  follow,  where  the  expression  recurs.  Tijndale  and  the  older 
versions  translate  "  couple  herself." 


AMOUNT  OF  COBBECTIONS  PROBABLE.  139 

oEiTicAL.     jio  adulteress,  though  she  be  joined  to  n^anJ^^*'^'"*'" 
another  man.     4  So  then,*  my  breth-  Wherefore 
ren,  ye  also  were  made  dead  to  the  are  become 
law  by  the  body  of  Christ ;  that  ye 
should  be  joined  to  another,  even  to  married 
him  who  was  raised  from  the  dead,  is 
that  we  should  bring  forth  fruit  unto 
God.     5  For  when  we  were  in  the 
flesh,  the  stirrings  of  sins,  which  were  motions 
by  the  law,  did  work  in  our  members 
to  bring  forth  fruit  unto  death.    6  But 
now  we  have  been  loosedf  from  the  are  delivered 
that  being  dead  law,   having     diedj    unto     that 

wherein  we  w^ere   held;  so  that  we  that  we  should 
serve  in  the   newness  of  the   spirit,  newness    spirit 
and  not  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter. 

7  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  7s  the 
law  sin?  God  forbid.  Howbeit,§  I  Nay, 
had  not  known  sin,  but  by  the  law : 
for  I  had  not  known  lust,  except  the 
law  had  said,  Thou  shalt  not  covet. 
8  But  sin,  taking  occasion!  by  the 

*  The  particle  {!)<7te  has  more  of  a  consecutive  rather  than  of  a  strongly 
ratiocinative  force.  As  "wherefore"  appears  to  be  a  very  convenient  trans- 
lation for  ap  ovv,  we  may  perhaps  properly  interchange  in  English  the  first 
words  of  verse  3  and  verse  4.  Tyndale  and  the  older  versions  had  "  so  then" 
in  the  former  verse,  and  "  even  so"  in  the  latter. 

t  Here  we  have  a  word  of  great  variety  of  meaning  in  the  N.  T.,  and  one 
never  easy  to  translate.  The  change  suggested  is  not  of  importance,  but 
seems  to  help  the  sense. 

X  The  reading  is  slightly  interesting  as  showing  that  our  revisers  must  have 
had  before  them  the  edition  of  Beza,  1565,  and  here  preferred  it  (see  the 
margin)  to  the  3d  edition  of  Stephens,  though  it  would  seem  that  the  reading 
cnroQavovTOQ  is  only  due  to  an  error  of  Beza's :  see  Tischendorf,  in  loc.  This 
the  A.V.  places  in  the  margin. 

§  This  change  seems  positively  necessary  to  bring  out  the  reasoning  of  the 
passage.  The  law  was  certainly  not  sin,  but  it  stood  so  far  in  connection 
with  it  that  it  made  it  known ;  a^apria  ^liv  ovk  tan,  yviDpiariKoQ  <Jt  aixapriag. 
— Theoph. 

II  Perhaps  it  might  be  a  little  more  accurate,  both  here  and  in  verse  11,  to 


1 40     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
cEiTicAL.      commandment,  wrought    in    me    all  gbammatical. 
manner  of  coveting.    For  without  the  concupiscence. 
law  sin  is  dead.     9  And  I  was  alive  was       For 
■  without  the  law  once :  but  when  the 
commandment  came,  sin  revived,  and 
I  died.     10  And  the  very  command- the  commandm. 
ment,  which  ^cas  for  life,  I  found  to  he  ordained  to 
for  death.     11  For  sin,  taking  occa-unto 
sion  by  the  commandment,  deceived 
me,  and  by  it  slew  me.     12  So  that  Wherefore 
the  law  indeed  is  holy,  and  the  com-  ia 
mandment  holy,  and  just,  and  good. 

13  Is  then  that  which  is  good  be- was 
come   death  unto  me  ?     God  forbid,  made 
But  sin  became  so,  that  it  might  ap- But  sin,  that 
pear  sin,  working  death  to  me  by  that  in 
which  is  good :  that  by  the  command-  that  sin  by  the 

°  '  .  .      commandment 

ment  sin  might  become  exceedmg  sm- 

ful.     14  For  we  know  that  the  law  is 

spiritual :  but  I  am  carnal,  sold  under 

sin.     15  For  what  I  perform,*  that  I  that  which  i  do 

n  IX  1  T      1  T     I  allow 

know  not :  lor  what  1  would,  tliat  do 
I  not ;  but  what  I  hate,  that  I  do.     16  do  i. 
But  if  I  do  that  which  I  would  not,  I  if  then 
consent  unto  the  law  that  it  is  good. 

translate  "having  taken,"  as  the  act  specified  by  the  particle  was  prior  to 
that  of  the  verb,  "  took  occasion  and,  etc. ;"  but  where  there  is  nothing  in 
the  context  that  requires  the  time  of  the  actions  to  be  speciall}-  marked,  we 
may  retain  the  looser  translation.  On  the  translation  of  participles,  when 
thus  with  finite  verbs,  see  Commentary  on  Phil,  ii.,  30. 

*  There  is  nearly  an  insurmountable  difficulty  in  marking  properly  in  trans- 
lation the  shades  of  meaning  in  the  KanpydZo/xai,  Trpuacrw,  and  iroiuj.  For 
the  first  and  strongest  of  the  three  we  may  retain  the  translation  adopted  by 
Auth.,  in  verse  18  ;  but  between  the  two  last  it  seems  hopeless  to  attempt  to 
discriminate  in  English.  All  that  can  be  said  is  that  trpaaoo)  is  the  stronger 
of  the  two,  and  appears  to  involve  the  idea  of  accomplishment.  Comp.  Rom. 
i.,  32,  and  see  Buttmann,  Lerilogus,  §  95,  3,  p.  493  (transl.).  The  various 
changes  in  this  verse  are  all  slight,  but  seem  to  bring  out  the  meaning  with 
more  distinctness  than  the  Authorized  Version. 


AMOUNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  141 

cKiTicAu     >^ow  then,  it  is  no  more  I  that  perfomi  ^gkammatioau 
it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me.     18 
For  I  know  that  there  dwelleth  not  that  in  me 
in  mo,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,  any  good  dweiieth  no 

.      .  .  T  good 

thing  :  for  to  will  is  present  with  me ; 
f^how  but  ^  to  perform  that  which  is  good 

I  find  not      is    not.      19  For    the    good  that  I 
would,  I  do  not :  but  the  evil  which 
I  would  not,  that  I  do.     20  Now  if  I 
do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I 
that  perform  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  do 
in  me.     21  I  find  therefore  this*  law,  then  a 
that,  when  I  would  do  good,  evil  is 
present  with  me.     22  For  I  delight  in 
the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man: 
23  But  I  see  a  differentf  law  in  my  another 
members,  warring  against  the  law  of 
my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  cap- 
tivity to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in 
my  members.     24  O  wretched   man 
that  I  am !  who  shall  deliver  me  from 
the  body  of  this  death  ?    25  I  thank 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 
Wherefore   with  the  mind  I  myself  so  then 
serve  the  law  of  God ;  but  with  the 
flesh  the  law  of  sin. 

*  It  is  very  rarely  that  the  article  can  properly  be  so  translated.  Here, 
however,  it  seems  required  by  the  idiom  of  our  language.  The  translation, 
"  the  law,"  would  also  lead  to  confusion.  Ttjndale  and  all  the  early  versions 
(except  WicUffe  and  the  RhemisK)  appear  to  have  been  misled  by  this  use 
of  the  wordsi 

t  Here  it  seems  certainly  necessary  to  give  the  accurate  translation  of 
tVfjOoc.  It  was  not  merely  aWoq  vo/xos,  but  'iripog  vofxog.  See  Tittmann, 
Si/non. ,  Tp.  155  seq.  and  on  the  difference  between  the  words,  comp.  notes  on 
Gal.i.,6. 


142     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

CHAPTEE  VIII. 

oBiTicAL.          1  There  is  tlierefore  now  no  con-  gkammatical. 
demnation    to    them    which    are    in 
/^  who  walk      Christ  Jesus  ..     2  For  the  law  of  the 
fleshUut  aft- Spirit   of  life   in  Christ  Jesus   hath 

er  the  Spirit.*  ,  f>        /•  ^i      i  c    •  i 

made  me  free  irom  the  law  oi  sm  and 

of  death,     3  For  what  the  law  could  and  death. 

not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through 

the  flesh,  God  sending  his  own  Son 

in  the  likeness  of  the  flesh  of  sin,f  and  sinful  flesh, 

for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh: 

4  That  the  righteous  demandj  of  the  righteousness 
law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk 

not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit. 

5  For  they  that  are  after  the  flesh  do 
mind  the  things  of  the  flesh;  but  they 
that  are  after  the  Spirit,  the  things  of 

the  Spirit.    6  For  the  mind  of  the  flesh  to  be  camaiiy 

is  death ;  but  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  is  to  be  spirituaiiy 

life  and  peace.     7  Because  the  mind 

of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against  God ;  camai  njind 

for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of 

God,  neither  indeed  can  be.     8  And§  so  then 

*  There  is  considerable  diversity  in  the  readings  of  these  words  in  those 
authorities  in  which  they  or  a  part  of  them  are  contained.  The  evidence  for 
their  complete  omission  is,  however,  perfectly  distinct  and  preponderant. 

t  Here  there  seems  no  sufficient  reason  for  departing  from  the  strict  trans- 
lation. For  remarks  on  this  form  of  genitive,  see  above,  p.  109.  All  the 
older  versions  adopt  the  adjectival  translation,  except  WicUffe  and  theiSAe/n- 
ish,  both  having  had  the  guidance  of  the  Vulgate. 

X  The  translation  of  Siicaiwua  is  by  no  means  easy.  The  Auth.  confounds 
it  with  SiKaioavvt],  the  Vulgate  ("justificatio")  with  ducaiuxxiQ.  The  etymo- 
logical form  of  the  word,  however,  precludes  both  forms  of  translation,  and 
limits  us  to  the  meaning  adopted  in  the  text.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that 
Tyndale  and  Coverdale  both  recognized  the  true  meaning,  though  they  adopt 
a  somewhat  paraphrastic  translation,  viz.,  "the  righteousness  required  of  the 
law." 

§  This  correction  is  necessary  for  the  logic  of  the  passage,  as  well  as  for 


AMOUNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  X43 

cBiTioAu     tiiey  tiiat  are  in  the  flesh  can  not  gbammatioal. 
please  God.     9  But  ye  are  not  in  the 
flesh,  but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  dwell*  in  you.    But  Now 
if  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  he  is  none  of  his.     10  And  if 
Christ  be  in  you,  the  body  indeed  ^sbody^8 
dead  because  of  sin ;  but  the  Spirit  is 
life  because  of  righteousness.    1 1  But 
if  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up 
Jesus  from  the  dead  dwell  in  you,  he 
that  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead 
shall  quicken  also  your  mortal  bodies  also  quicken 
byf  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you. 

the  removal  of  the  thoroughly  erroneous  assumption  that  ck  can  ever  be 
equivalent  to  ovv.  The  particle  has  here  its  usual  transitional  force.  It 
reverts  to  the  abstract  statement  in  the  first  clause  of  verse  8,  and  adds  to 
it  the  illustration  of  actual  experience,  the  second  clause  of  that  verse  being 
parenthetical.  In  Enghsh  we  have  probably  no  better  translation  than  the 
simple  "and,"  but  it  is  confessedly  defective,  as  not  marking  the  transition 
(from  the  abstract  to  the  concrete)  that  is  brought  out  by  the  ^i,  and  very 
fairly  expressed  by  the  "  autem"  of  the  Vulgate.  The  only  other  translation 
"now,"  as  used  in  our  ordinaiy  argumentative  English,  is  too  strong,  and 
suggests  too  much  the  commencement  of  a  fresh  argument,  whereas  we  have 
here  only  the  continuation  under  a  slightly  changed  foi-m  of  foregoing  state- 
ments. These  may  seem  at  first  mere  niceties,  but,  on  sober  consideration,  it 
will  be  seen  that  our  appreciation  of  the  mind  of  the  inspired  writer  depends 
on  our  due  recognition  of  them.  All  corrections  of  this  nature  are  important 
and  necessary. 

*  It  might  at  first  seem  doubtful  whether  this  mood  is  strictly  correct. 
Consideration  would  seem  to  show  that  it  is,  as  the  particle  in  the  original 
{tiTTtp)  involves  no  decision  (Winer,  Grammar,  §  53,  9),  and  the  case  i\  one 
that  may  or  may  not  be  as  stated.  In  such  cases  English  idiom  appears  to 
require  the  subjunctive;  where,  however,  a  case  is  contemplated  as  actually 
in  existence,  then  the  indicative  is  most  usual.  See  Latham,  Engl.  Lang. , 
§  537,  and  the  comments  in  my  notes  on  2  Thess.  iii.,  14  (transl.').  As  Meyer 
acutely  observes,  the  words  carry  with  them  an  indirect  exhortation  to  test 
the  fact.  We  retain,  then,  the  subjunctive  throughout.  On  the  true  mean- 
ing of  ilirtp  ("si  omnino"),  see  Klotz, Devarius,  vol.  ii.,  p.  308,  528,  and  the 
very  good  note  of  Moulton  in  Winer,  Gramm.,  I.  c,  p.  5G1  seq.,  on  the  uses 
of  tiTTip  and  tiy€. 

t  This  is  another  interesting  proof  that  the  revisers  of  1611  were  probably 


1 44     ELLICOTT  OX  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
oBiTioAL.         1 2  Wherefore  brethren,  we  are  debt-  GE.uaMATicAL. 

'  Therefore 

ors,  not  to  the  flesh,  that  we  should*  to 
live  after  the  flesh.     1 3  For  if  ye  live 
after  the  flesh,  ye  mustf  die :  but  if  by  shall 
the  Spirit  ye  mortify  the  deeds  of  the  ifye  through  the 
body,  ye  shall  live.     14  For  as  many   ^'"' 
as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they 
are  the  sonsj  of  God.     15  For  ye  re- have  not  re- 
ceived not  the  spirit  of  bondage  again 
unto  fear;  but  ye  received  the  Spirit  to  have  received 

using  the  text  of  the  fourth  edition  of  Beza,  with  some  preference  over  that 
of  Stephens.  The  difference  is  that  the  former  reads  did  with  the  genitive 
throughout  the  clause,  the  latter  ^la  with  the  accusative,  which,  however,  is 
noticed  in  the  margin.  As  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  decide  which  way  the 
critical  balance  turns,  we  may  perhaps  rightly  fall  back  upon  the  Sinaitic 
Manuscript  as  an  arbiter,  and  so,  with  that  ancient  witness,  retain  the  geni- 
tive, and  the  translation  as  existing  in  our  own  version. 

*  See  above,  notes  on  chap.vi.,  6,  note  *,  p.  136. 

t  Necessary  to  express  the  explicit  words  in  the  original,  fi'tWiTt.  diro6vi]a- 
KHv.  In  the  second  clause  it  is  the  simple  future  Z))(na9e.  The  change  in 
the  remainder  of  the  verse  is  to  remove  the  emphasis  which  Auth.  seems 
accidentally  to  give  to  the  "ye"  by  the  prominence  of  its  position.  The 
pronoun  is  not  (as  is  usual  in  cases  of  emphasis)  expressed  in  the  Greek,  and 
the  emphasis,  it  may  be  added,  is  obviously  on  Uvevfia. 

t  There  is  no  necessity,  with  some  revisers,  to  remove  the  article.  It  is 
not  found  in  the  Greek,  but  it  may  here  be  properly  retained  in  the  English : 
First,  because,  as  has  been  already  hinted,  the  use  of  the  article  in  English  is 
by  no  means  coincident  in  all  cases  with  that  of  the  Greek.  The  presence 
or  absence  of  the  article  in  the  case  of  the  latter  noun,  when,  as  here,  two 
nouns  are  in  regimen,  influences  its  use  with  the  governing  noun  much  more 
distinctly  than  is  the  case  even  in  the  best  English.  Secondly,  there  are 
several  cases  in  Greek,  especially,  as  here,  after  verbs  implying  name,  exist- 
ence, etc.,  where  the  article,  to  speak  strictly,  becomes  latent.  See  Bp.  Mid- 
dleton,  Greek  Art.,  iii.,  3,  2,  p.  43  (ed.  Rose),  and  Green,  Grammar,  p.  35  seq., 
where  there  are  some  acute  remarks  on  this  usage.  There  are  also  several 
other  cases — e.  g. ,  art.  with  abstract  nouns,  omission  (a)  after  a  preposition, 
(6)  when  a  dependent  genitive  supplies  sufficient  definition,  (c)  before  certain 
well-known  nouns  (see  the  long  list  in  Winer,  GraTwwar,  §  19,  p.  149  seq.,  ed. 
Moulton),  in  which  the  idioms  of  the  two  languages  are  not  the  same,  and 
where  the  reviser  must  be  especially  on  his  guard.  We  notice  this  at  length, 
as,  in  our  very  best  specimens  of  scholarly  re\asion,  many  instances  will  be 
found  of  want  of  full  appreciation  of  the  differences  of  usage  in  English  and 
Greek  as  to  the  absence  or  the  presence  of  the  article.  The  whole  subject 
requires  accurate  consideration. 


AMOUNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  145 

cEiTicAL.  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  gkammatical. 
Father.  16  The  Spirit  itself  beareth 
witness  with  our  spirit  that  we  are 
the  children  of  God  :  17  And  if  chil- 
dren, then  heirs ;  heirs  of  God,  and 
joint-heirs  with  Christ ;  if  so  be  that 
we  suffer  with  him,  that  we  may  also  be  also 
be  glorified  with  ?dm.  together. 

18  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings 
of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy 
to  he  compared  with  the  glory  which 
is  to  be  revealed  in  us.     19  For  the  shall  be 
earnest  expectation  of  the  creation  is  creature  waiteth 
tarrying*  for  the  revelation   of  the  manifestation 
sons  of  God.    20  For  the  creation  was  creature 
made  subject  to  vanity,  not  willingly, 
but  by  reason  of  him  who  hath  sub- 
jected the  same  in  hope ;   21  Becausef 
the  creation  itself  also  shall  be  deliv-  creature 
ered  from  the  bondage  of  corruption 
into  the  liberty  of  the  glory  of  the  glorious  liberty 
children  of  God.     22  For  we  know 
that  the  whole  creation  groaneth  and 
travaileth  in  pain  together  until  now. 

*  Here  the  double  compound  awiKSix^Tai  seems  to  require,  both  as  to  tense 
and  meaning,  the  change  suggested  in  the  text.  It  is,  however,  a  change 
which  perhaps  is  to  be  considered  a  so-called  improvement  rather  than  a 
correction,  and  so  might  be  judged  by  many  to  be  unnecessary.  The  change 
in  the  almost  technical  word  that  follows  is  perhaps  of  more  moment,  as 
serving  to  bring  out  still  more  clearly  the  time  and  circumstances  of  the  man- 
ifestation.    Compare  Col.  iii.,  4  ;  1  John  iii.,  2,  al. 

t  Here  the  preponderance  of  exegetical  argument  seems  in  fevor  of  the 
translation  "in  hope  that  the  creation,"  etc.,  the  on  being  not  causal,  but 
demonstrative.  See  especially  the  good  note  of  Meyer,  in  loc.  The  same 
remark  applies  also  to  the  particle  in  verse  27.  This,  however,  is  just  one 
of  those  doubtful  passages  in  which  the  exegetical  preponderance  hardly 
seems  quite  sufficient  to  justify  the  substitution  in  a  revision  made  on  princi- 
ples such  as  the  present.  The  alternative  reading  should,  however,  certainly 
be  placed  in  the  margin.     It  is  so  placed  by  the  translators  in  verse  27. 


146     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

oniTioAL.     23  And  not  only  they,  but  ourselves  ge^maticau 
also,  which  have  the  firstfi'uits  of  the 
Spirit,  even  we  ourselves  groan  with- 
in ourselves,  tarrying  for  the  adop- waiting 
tion,  to  loit,  the   redemption   of  our 
body.     24  For  we  are  saved  by  hope: 
but  hope  that  is  seen  is  not  hope :  for 
what  a  man  seeth,  why  doth  he  also  yet 
hope  for  it  ?     25  But  if  we  hope  for 
that  we  see  not,  then  do  we  with  pa- 
tience tarry  for  it.    26  In  like  manner  wait    Likewise 

infirmities:  the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  weak- 
ness:* for  we  know  not  what  we 
should  pray  for  as  we  ought :  but 
the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession 

for  us  for  tis  with  groanings  which  can  not 

be  uttered.    2  7  But  he  that  searcheth  And 
the  hearts  knoweth  what  is  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit,  because  he  maketh  in- 
tercession for  the  saints  according  to 
the  will  of  God. 

28  Moreoverf  we    know   that    all  And 
things    work   together   for  good  to 
them  that  loVe  God,  to  them  who  are 
the  called  according  to  his  purpose. 
29  Because  whom  he  foreknew,  he  also  Jfd  foreknow, 

*  The  reading  requires  a  change  from  the  plural  to  the  singular.  As  a 
change  has  thus  to  be  made,  we  have  taken  advantage  of  it  to  substitute  the 
simpler  word  used  by  Coverdale  ("  weakness")  for  the  less  easy  though  scrip- 
turally  familiar  term  "infirmity." 

t  This  seems  a  necessary  change,  it  being  designed  to  mark  the  commence- 
ment of  another  and  third  clause  illustrative  of  the  main  statement.  The 
connection  would  seem  to  be  as  follows.  The  last  words  of  verse  17  form  the 
kind  of  text.  Arguments  of  encouragement  and  consolation  then  follow — 
the  first,  verses  18-25  ;  the  second,  verses  26,  27;  the  third,  verses  28-31. 
The  transitions  are,  however,  so  easy  that  it  does  not  seem  desirable  to  mark 
each  one  off  by  a  separate  paragraph. 


AMOUNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PROBABLE.  147 

CRITICAL,     foreordained*  to  he  conformed  to  the  grammatical. 

did  predesliuate 

image  of  his  Sou,  that  he  might  be 

the  firstborn  among  many  brethren. 

30  And  whom  he  foreordained,  them  5J°'p«;?;^\^3jj^^^ 

he  also  called :  and  whom  lie  called, 

them  he  also  justified:  and  whom  he 

justified,  them  he  also  glorified. 

31  What   thenf    shall  we   say  totheusay 
these  things  ?    If  God  be  for  us,  who 
can    he    against    us?     32  He    that 
spared  not  his   own  Son,  but  deliv- 
ered him  up  for  us  all,  how  shall  he 
not  also  with  him  fi-eely  give  us  all  with  Wm  also 
things?     33  Who  shall  lay  any  thing 
to  the  charge. of  God's  elect  ?J    It  is 
God  that  justifieth ;     34  Who  is  he 
that  condemneth?     It  is  Christ  that 
died,  yea  more,  that  is  risen  again,  rather, 
who  is  also§  at   the   right  hand  of  even 
God,  who   also   maketh  intercession 

*  Such  a  change  as  this  would  perhaps  hardly  be  adopted  by  any  body  of 
revisers.  Still,  it  does  seem  desirable  to  remove  a  word  of  theological  con- 
troversy when  a  simpler  and  better  word  is  at  hand.  It  seems  also  best  to 
preserve  the  simply  aoristic  translation  throughout  the  pronoun.  In  regard 
of  the  preceding  pronoun  it  might  perhaps  be  clearer  if  we  adopted  the  longer 
form  "those  whom,"  as  in  some  of  the  earlier  versions;  but  this  is  one  of 
those  many  cases  where,  the  meaning  being  quite  plain,  the  A.V.  may  be  left 
untouched. 

t  This  slight  change  of  position  ssems  desirable  as  marking  the  commence- 
ment of  the  paragraph,  and  the  statement  of  logical  consequence  which  now 
follows. 

X  The  exact  pimctuation  of  this  passage,  and  the  relation  of  the  clauses  to 
each  other,  is  much  contested.  Perhaps  the  most  probable  punctuation  is, 
"Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect?  God  is  he  that 
justifieth,  who  is  he  that  condemneth  ?"  In  what  follows  the  term  ^iKaiwv 
seems  to  have  at  once  introduced  the  mention  of  the  name  of  the  Justifier, 
which  thus  appears  in  an  appended  clause :  "As  regards  Christ,  he  it  is  verily 
who  died,"  etc.    Then  follows  the  noble  and  triumphant  question  in  verse  35. 

§  This  trivial  change  seems  required  to  continue  evenly  the  climax.  The 
"  even"  rather  tends  to  import  a  thought  not  in  the  context. 


148     I^LLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
oBiTicAL.     for  ^^g_     35  "^ho   ghall  separate   us  qkammaticau 
from  the  love  of  Christ  ?  shall  tribu- 
lation, or  distress,  or  persecution,  or 
famine,   or    nakedness,   or    peril,   or 
sword  ?     36  Even*  as   it  is  written,  As 
For  thy  sake  are  we  killed  all  the  we  are 
day  long ;  we  are  accounted  as  sheep 
for   the    slaughter.     37  Yet,f   in    all  Nay, 
these  things  we  are  more  than  con- 
querors through  him  that  loved  us. 
38  For  I  am  persuaded,  that  neither 
death,  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  princi- 

principaiities,    palities,  nor  things  present,  nor  things 

nor  powers,  ^ 

northings  to  come,  nor  powers,  39  JNor 
height,  nor  depth,  nor  any  other 
creature,!  shall  be  able  to  separate 
us  from  the  love  of  God,  Avhich  is  in 
Christ  Jesus  our  Lord. 

The  amount  and  nature  of  the  corrections  in  the  foregoins: 
Result  of  the  poi'tion  IS,  as  we  have  already  observed,  consid- 
whoie.  erable  on  the  right-hand  margin,  but  inconsid- 

erable on  the  left.     The  changes  due  to  textual  revision  in 

*  The  two  changes  in  this  verse  apparently  help  the  general  context.  They 
again  stand  on  the  debatable  ground  of  being  merely  "improvements;"  but, 
being  small  changes,  and  not  appearing  in  any  way  to  interfere  with  the 
rhythm  of  the  verse,  they  perhaps  may  appear.  The  second  just  hints  at  the 
change  of  tenses  in  the  original.  An  aoristic  translation  of  iXoyhOrifiiv  (com- 
pare verse  24)  would  seem  to  be  an  overcorrection,  as  tending  to  turn  the 
reader's  thoughts  more  definitely  to  the  past,  as  the  past,  than  the  context 
requires. 

t  Here  it  seems  clearly  necessary  to  preserve  unambiguously  (the  "nay"  is 
rather  of  doubtful  meaning)  the  contrast  specified  in  this  verse:  "Though 
thus  persecuted,  yet."  etc.  In  some  of  the  older  versions  "nevertheless"  is 
adopted.     This,  however,  seems  here  a  little  too  heavy. 

t  The  translation  "created  thing"  would  make  the  meaning  more  plain; 
but  change  is  perhaps  not  necessary.  The  student  may  be  reminded  that 
the  difference  between  verbals  terminating  in  -ffic  and  -fia  is,  as  in  this  word, 
sometimes  obliterated  in  the  N.  T.     Compare  notes  on  Phil,  iv.,  6. 


AMO  UNT  OF  CORRECTIONS  PR  OB  ABLE.  149 

the  108  verses  are  only  11,  or  much  below  the  average;  but 
the  amount  of  grammatical  corrections  is  very  decidedly 
above  it,  the  number  of  such  changes  being  about  IVO  in  all. 
When  we  combine,  however,  these  results  with  those  derived 
from  the  former  portion  of  Scripture,  and  observe  the  actual 
amount  in  the  219  verses,  we  have  finally  30  changes  owing 
to  critical  considerations,  and  about  226  changes  which  seem* 
to  be  i-equired,  on  the  principles  already  laid  down,  by  gram- 
mar and  general  interpretation ;  or,  in  other  words,  not  quite 
the  estimated  amount  of  one  correction  for  every  five  verses 
in  the  matter  of  criticism  and  text,  and  slightly  more  than 
one  for  every  verse  in  respect  of  general  revision. 

We  are  now  at  length  able  to  proceed  onward,  and  are  in 
a  position  fairly  to  test  the  justice  and  cogency  of  current 
objections  to  revision.  We  now  know  approximately  the 
extent  to  which  revision  would  probably  extend,  and  are 
certainly  justified  in  declining  to  answer  objections  which 
are  founded  on  the  assumption  that  revision  would  be  so 
great  as  distinctly  to  alter  the  tone  and  character  of  the 
present  version.  Six  changes  in  every  five  verses,  and  prob- 
ably three  at  least  of  these  of  a  very  slight  kind,  could  by  no 
stretch  of  imagination  produce  the  results  which  are  so  justly 
deprecated. 

As  will  be  seen  in  the  next  chapter,  the  resultant  question 
will  really  be  whether  the  arguments  derived  from  consid- 
erations of  the  faithfulness  due  to  God's  Word  do  fairly  pre- 
ponderate over  those  which  rest  on  the  general  undesirable- 
ness  of  introducing  changes  when  they  will  not  be  moi-e  than 
what  has  been  already  specified. 

*  We  italicize  the  word,  as  we  are  quite  conscious  that  there  may  be  several 
changes  in  these  219  verses  in  which  the  shadowy  line  between  mere  improve- 
ment and  necessary  con-ection  has  not  been  always  observed .  It  is  hard  to 
resist  the  temptation  to  introduce  a  change  when  it  is  clear  that  the  change 
brings  out  more  distinctly  the  meaning  of  the  inspired  words,  but  this  is  a 
feeling  which  revisers  must  watch. 


150     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

OBJECTIONS   TO   EEVISION,  VALID   AND    INVALID. 

"We  are  now  at  length  in  a  position  to  discuss  the  current 
objections  to  revision,  and  may  shortly  notice  what  has  been 
urged  by  sober  thinkers  against  the  course  which  has  been 
advocated  in  these  pages. 

Of  these  objections,  some  are  invalid  and  unreasonable,  and 
Nature  of  the  cur-  ^^"^  of  such  a  nature,  considered  logically,  that 
rent  objectioDs.  ^^^  ^^^^  wondcr  that  they  stand  in  connection 
with  the  honored  names  with  which  they  have  been  recently 
associated.  There  are,  however,  as  we  have  indicated  at  the 
close  of  the  last  chapter,  some  objections  of  real  force  and 
validity,  which  have  lately  been  urged  against  revision,  and 
to  them  we  shall  give,  as  far  as  we  are  able,  respectful  an- 
swers ;  but  to  the  majority  of  current  objections  really  no 
answer  need  be  returned.  They  are  based  on  the  assumption 
that  great  changes  are  contemplated,  and  that  no  revision 
could  be  undertaken  without  involving  them,  whereas  what 
has  been  suggested  in  the  Convocation  off  the  Province  of 
Canterbury  is  very  different,  and  much  more  historically 
probable.  The  argument  assumes  usually  the  form  of  a  di- 
lemma. Either  there  must  be  great  change,  or  comparatively 
little  change :  if  the  former,  it  is  obviously  undesirable ;  if 
the  latter,  it  is  not  worth  while  moving  in  a  matter  where 
the  principle  of  quieta  non  movere  is  commonly  considered 
to  have  great  weight.  The  latter  portion  of  this  dilemma  is 
that  only  with  which  we  are  here  concerned. 

It  must  be  observed,  however,  that  the  opponents  of  re- 
objections  not  ai-  vision  havG  uot  kept  these  two  considerations 
ways  fairly  urged,  pj-operly  apart.  Evcn  in  the  Northern  Convo- 
cation, where  the  learning  and  weight  of  the  speakers  might 


OBJECTIONS  TO  REVISION,  VALID  AND  INVALID.         151 

have  led  to  the  expectation  that  the  subject  would  be  dis- 
cussed with  calmness  of  thought  and  with  fairness  of  reason- 
ing, several  of  the  speakers  not  only  used  arguments  which 
belong  to  one  portion  of  the  dilemma  when  really  the  other 
portion  was  that  only  which  was  properly  under  considera- 
tion, but  even  adopted  expressions  which  would  seem  to  in- 
dicate some  amount  of  bias  and  prejudgment.  For  instance, 
when  one  prelate  urges  as  an  objection  that  the  power  of 
writing  clear  and  dialectic  English  had  failed,  what  connec- 
tion can  such  a  comment  have  with  a  proposal  for  introduc- 
ing a  limited  number  of  verbal  changes  ?  Or,  again,  when 
another  prelate  begins  his  speech  by  saying  that  touching 
the  English  Bible  is  like  touching  the  ark,  what  can  we  feel 
but  that  strong  prejudice  is  imported  just  where  scholars 
and  theologians  would  most  deprecate  its  introduction?  A 
tacit  appeal  is  really  made  to  strong  predilections,  which, 
however  rightful  in  themselves,  are  commonly  found  incon- 
sistent with  the  coolness  and  sobriety  of  judgment  which  no 
subject  needs  more  imperatively  than  the  present.  Even  the 
president  of  the  venerable  body  used  language  and  adopted 
a  simile,  viz.,  that  of  the  rider  by  a  precipice  at  night,  which 
to  his  clear  and  logical  mind  must  have  seemed,  on  consid- 
eration, to  have  involved  some  amount  of  antecedent  bias. 
Other  expressions,  too,  were  used,  which  we  must  venture  to 
consider  as  unduly  strong  when  taken  in  connection  with  the 
proposals  actually  before  the  deliberative  assembly.  Surely 
no  one  contemplates,  or  ever  did  contemplate,  except  in  the 
days  of  Purver  and  Harwood, "  sending  down  our  beloved 
Bible  into  the  crucible  to  be  melted  down."  At  any  rate,  the 
resolution  of  the  Province  of  Canterbury,  with  its  distinct  spe- 
cifications and  guarded  language,  stood  in  no  degree  of  con- 
nection with  any  such  unreasonable  and  extravagant  design. 
Xow  when  we  pass  from,  the  arguments  to  the  counter-pro- 
counter  propo-  posals  with  Avhich  they  were  associated — such, 
NorthemVon-  '^^^^  instance,  as  to  encourage  independent  schol- 
vocatioii.  jjj,g  ^Q  make  their  revisions,  or  to  wait  for  the 


152      ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

lingering  Speaker's  Commentary,  as  it  has  been  called,  what 
do  they  amount  to  but  to  proposals  practically  to  encourage 
that  which  experience  has  jjroved  valueless,  and  which  sub- 
sequently the  most  reverend  speaker  himself  very  properly 
deprecated — the  so-called  improved  versions  of  individual  re- 
visers ?  If  we  were  to  take  the  indirect  suggestion  of  anoth- 
er prelate,  and  wait  jDatiently  for  the  Speaker's  Commentary, 
what  really  Avould  our  gain  be  ?  It  would  amount  to  no  more 
than  the  opinion  of  another  competent  scholar  to  be  added  to 
the  many  that,  in  the  New  Testament  at  least,  have  already 
been  given  as  to  the  true  translation  of  the  passages  under 
consideration.  What  we  now  want  is  not  any  increase  of 
individual  opinions,  but  the  collective  opinion  of  a  full  com- 
pany of  scholars  on  the  best  translation  in  passages  where 
the  Authorized  Version  is  judged  to  need  revision.  If  the 
Speaker's  Commentary  were  to  give  us  corrections  of  this 
kind,  we  should  be  wise  to  wait  patiently  for  it ;  but  if  we 
are  only  to  wait  for  suggested  corrections  emanating  from  in- 
dividuals, who  may  be  very  good  commentators,  but  very  un- 
practiced  revisers,  why,  we  wait  really  for  very  little.  The 
Speaker's  Commentary  will  probably  be  a  great  addition  to 
our  exegetical  literature,  and  a  most  welcome  aid  to  the  the- 
ological student,  but  it  absolutely  can  give  little  more,  and 
professes  to  give  little  more,  in  each  place,  than  the  judgment 
of  the  single  commentator.  With  such  a  w^ork  as  is  under 
present  contemplation,  viz.,  a  revision  of  our  version  by  a 
body  of  competent  scholars,  it  really  has  scarcely  any  thing 
in  common.  A  commentary  is  probably  always  done  best 
by  a  single  mind ;  a  revision,  as  we  have  already  especially 
endeavored  to  show  in  a  former  chapter,  must  be,  if  it  is  to 
be  successful,  the  result  of  the  judgment  of  several  minds  C07i- 
ferring  together^  and  doing  their  work,  as  much  as  possible, 
round  a  common  table. 

We  may,  then,  without  any  disrespect  to  the  speakers, 
Three  important  Plainly  dismiss  these  various  arguments  and 
objections.  proposals  as  being  really  only  the  old  argu- 


OBJECTIOXS  TO  REVISIOX,  VALID  AND  INVALID.         153 

menta  inertice,  rcprocluced  with  some  degree  of  vigor,  and  at 
once  proceed  to  those  real  objections  which  no  one  can  afford 
lightly  to  pass  by.  These  objections  are  only  three  in  num- 
ber :  Jirst,  that  revision  would  tend  to  unsettle ;  secondly,  that 
it  would  probably  loosen  the  bond  between  ourselves  and 
Nonconfoi'mists,  and,  indeed,  between  the  Church  of  England 
and  the  American  and  colonial  churches,  the  present  Author- 
ized Version  being  common  to  all ;  thirdly^  that  it  would  en- 
courage still  farther  revisions,  and  that  the  great  changes  in 
our  version,  which  we  all  agree  to  dejDrecate,  would  be  brought 
about  by  successive  revisions — in  a  word,  that  there  would 
be  no  finality. 

These  three  objections  certainly  require  thoughtful  consid- 
Antecedent  con-    eration,  and  to  them  it  may  be  well  to  devote 

sideralion:  latent  .  n    i  •       i  /-x  1.      • 

objections.  the  remainder  01  this  chapter.     One  prelimina- 

ry consideration,  however,  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that,  even 
were  these  objections  greater  than  they  really  will  be  found 
to  be,  there  still  remains  on  the  other  side  the  great  argument 
of  duty,  which  with  some  minds  will  outweigh  every  other 
consideration,  whether  of  convenience  or  of  religious  policy. 
Xow  if  it  be  conceded  that  there  are  errors  in  our  present 
version,  and  if  it  also  be  conceded  that  they  are  fairly  remova- 
ble, and  that  any  competent  body  of  scholars  could  hopefully 
address  itself  to  the  work,  then  surely  every  principle  of  loy- 
alty to  God's  Word  requires  that  this  work  should  be  done. 
It  is  not  an  answer  to  say  that  each  expounder  of  Scripture 
may  do  this  for  himself  and  for  his  audience ;  for,  in  the  first 
place,  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  correction  of  the  individ- 
ual will  reflect  some  bias  or  some  want  of  that  many-sidedness 
of  consideration  which  only  several  minds,  working  together, 
can  be  expected  to  exhibit.  Secondly,  nothing  really  does 
more  dishonor  to  the  Inspired  Word  than  to  leave  it  con- 
fessedly in  a  state  in  which  there  is  practically  a  sort  of 
standing  invitation  to  the  ordinary  preacher  to  correct  before 
his  audience  what  he  himself  would  probably  designate  as 
our  "  otherwise  admirable-  version."    It  is  no  use  saying  that 

Pp 


154     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

the  corrections  needed  will  not  aftect  great  principles,  or  that 
no  errors  have  been  produced,  as  a  speaker  at  York  expressed 
it,  "  inconsistent  with  the  truth  of  God."  There  are  errors  in 
our  translation  which  involve  such  inconsistency,  and  involve 
it,  too,  in  the  way  in  which  vital  truths  are  most  seriously  af- 
fected, viz.,  by  the  inferences  drawn  from  the  written  words. 
Suppose  it  be  true,  though  even  this  we  do  not  concede,  that 
there  is  no  obvious  error  in  our  version,  whether  in  the  text 
or  in  the  translation,  affecting  any  distinct  definition  of  doc- 
trine, yet  can  any  one,  with  the  most  moderate  knowledge  of 
theology,  undertake  to  deny  that  a  great  number  of  current 
deductions,  commonly  made  and  commonly  accejjted,  affect- 
ing such  vital  doctrines  as  the  doctrine  of  personal  salvation 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  last  things — what  is  technically  called 
soteriology  and  eschatology — rest  upon  mistranslations  of 
words  and  misconceptions  in  exegesis,  which  might  be  great- 
ly reduced,  if  not  wholly  removed,  by  a  fair  and  scholarly  re- 
vision ?  There  are  favorite  proof-texts,  as  the  Bishop  of  St. 
David's  pointed  out  with  his  usual  acuteness,  though,  as  we 
subsequently  learn  from  him,  to  his  own  great  personal  incon- 
venience, which  would  certainly  disappear  from  their  present 
prominence  in  current  homiletical  teaching.  There  are  pas- 
sages, not  few  in  number,  which  revision  would  certainly  re- 
lieve from  much  of  their  present  servitude  of  misuse  in  re- 
ligious controversy.  It  really  would  form  a  just  subject  for 
wonder  that  jjerhaps  the  greater  jiortion  of  those  who  are 
loyally  attached,  even  to  extreme  views  as  to  verbal  inspira- 
tion, are  now  found  among  the  opponents  to  revision,  if  the 
reason  were  not  intelligible  and  somewhat  easy  to  divine. 
When  we  simply  call  to  mind  the  many  passages  in  which 
certain  shades  of  certain  opinions,  not  in  the  original  words 
nor  in  the  context,  wei'e  still  permitted  to  linger — if  indeed, 
here  and  there,  they  were  not  introduced — we  may  perhaps 
cease  to  be  surprised  at  the  almost  passionate  language  with 
which  all  attempts  to  exhibit  Avith  greater  faithfulness  the 
real  mind  of  the  inspired  original  are  deprecated  and  con- 


OBJECTIOXS  TO  BEVISIOX,  VALID  AND  INVALID.         155 

demned.  The  truth  is  often  unpalatable,  and  we  fear  it  may 
be  so  in  this  case,  but  the  fact  is  certain — some  extreme  views 
especially  in  reference  to  some  deeper  doctrines,  would  lose 
some  amount  of  the  support  which  they  now  find  in  the 
translated  words  of  the  English  Version  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, if  those  words  were  fairly  reconsidered  by  impartial 
and  competent  scholars. 

If  this  be  so,  then  the  counter -argument  of  faithfulness 
Real  weight  of  the  comes  back  to  US  asjain  with  increased  force. 

aro;nineiit  ot  faith-  ^ 

fulness.  At  any  rate,  be  this  as  it  may,  the  counter-ar- 

gument must  ever  be  fully  borne  in  mind  before  we  enter  into 
the  objections.  With  some  minds,  the  duty  of  faithfulness 
to  God's  Word  will  outweigh  every  other  consideration;  and 
with  most  minds  it  Avill  be  admitted  to  be  an  antecedent  ar- 
gument which,  at  any  rate,  requires  enhanced  force  in  the 
arguments  on  the  other  side.  Most  people  very  quickly  as- 
sume that  revision  is  a  sort  of  professional  matter,  and  that 
the  advocacy  of  it  only  arises  fi-om  some  commingled  desire 
of  presenting  the  sacred  documents  in  a  better  form,  and  at 
the  same  time  of  airing  our  scholarship,  and  never  seriously 
consider  that  with  some  it  is  a  matter  of  deepest  moment, 
and  that  it  appeals  to  the  most  conscientious  convictions,  as 
to  Christian  duty  and  Christian  faithfulness,  that  can  be  found 
in  any  heart.  On  this  subject  there  should  be  no  mistake. 
With  all  those  who  seriously  advocate  combined  and  author- 
itative revision  it  is  a  question  of  simple  duty.  They  are 
persuaded  that  the  Church,  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the 
truth,"  the  guardian  of  the  inspired  archives,  and  the  trans- 
mitter of  them  to  her  children,  is  bound  to  give  them  to  those 
children  in  the  purest  and  truest  form,  and  that  the  Convo- 
cation of  the  Southern  Province  has  only  done  her  duty  in 
moving  in  this  holy  cause  without  any  reference  to  the  pop- 
ular arguments  of  prejudice  or  expediency. 

With  a  recognition  then,  at  any  rate,  of  the  deep  convic- 
tions of  those  who  are  now  moving  for  a  revision  of  the 
present  Version  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  especially  of  the 


156     ELLIQOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  TEE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

New  Testament,  let  us  now  soberly  consider  the  three  objec- 
tions which  we  have  already  specified. 

The  first  argument,  that  a  revision  of  the  Scripture  would 
First  objection  ^^^^  to  unsettle  men's  minds,  and  shake  their 
considered.  f^j^j^  jjj  ^j^g  inspired  Word  itself,  is,  we  regret 
to  write  it,  the  weakest  of  the  three  arguments.  It  Avas  a 
fairly  valid  objection  no  more  than  a  few  years  back,  but, 
alas !  it  has  ceased  to  be  one  now.  It  sounded  fairly  con- 
vincing in  the  House  of  Commons  some  thirteen  or  fourteen 
years  ago,  from  the  mouth  of  a  minister  of  the  crown,  in  an- 
swer to  an  ill-considered  proposal  of  one  who  scarcely  could 
be  considered  an  authority  on  such  a  subject.  Approbation 
probably  was  given  to  the  answer;  but  would  that  approba- 
tion be  given  now?  Nay,  would  any  minister  of  the  crown 
ever  dream  of  using  such  a  counter-argument  now  ?  No ; 
faith,  not  merely  in  the  words  and  expressions  of  Scripture, 
but  in  its  very  historical  foundation,  has  of  late  been  so  seri- 
ously shaken,  that  few  could  be  found  who  in  any  popular 
assembly  could  expect  such  an  argument  would  be  deemed 
now  to  have  any  real  weight.  What  would  verbal  changes, 
often  very  trivial,  at  the  rate  of  one  a  verse,  amount  to,  in 
regard  of  unsettling  men's  minds,  when  compared  with  the 
earthquake-like  movements  which  have  taken  place  since  the 
last-mentioned  argument  was  used  in  the  House  of  Commons? 
In  an  age  that  has  welcomed  Essays  and  Hevieios,  and  pas- 
sionately praised  such  a  semi-Socinian  treatise  as  JScce  Homo, 
we  must  feel  that  such  an  objection  as  this  can  not  possibly  be 
admitted  to  hold  any  place.  Even  if  it  were  to  be  urged  in 
reference  to  those  who  at  present  have  not  seriously  felt  the 
movement  to  which  we  have  alluded — the  pure,  tender,  and 
loving  souls  that  yet  believe  with  all  the  trust  and  devotion 
of  the  days  that  are  now  no  more,  it  would  hardly  have  much 
weight,  as  it  would  be  balanced  by  the  consideration  that  we 
should  tend  most  to  reassure  such  spirits  by  showing  to  them, 
by  the  very  facts  of  the  revision,  how  blessed  a  heritage  was 
the  English  Bible,  and  how  little  heed  was  to  be  paid  to  at- 


ORTECTIOXS  TO  liEVISION,  VALID  AND  IXYALID.         157 

tempts  to  vilify  it.  Instead  of  being  liable  to  the  insidious 
advance  of  aioprehensions  that  the  English  Bible  was  not  to 
be  relied  on  as  a  faithful  translation,  they  would  see  ultimate- 
ly what  little  change,  even  in  an  age  of  doubt  as  well  as  of 
advanced-  scholarship,  was  deemed  necessary  to  be  made  in 
the  Volume  they  loved  so  well.  Far  from  unsettling,  we  are 
convinced  that  a  wise  and  authoritative  revision  would  at 
the  present  time  act  exactly  in  the  conti'ary  way,  and  that  it 
would  probably  tend,  more  than  can  now  even  be  imagined, 
to  tranquillize  and  to  reassure. 

The  second  objection  is  of  greater  weight,  but  there  are 
Second  objection  Several  Countervailing  considerations  which  it 
considered,  jg  desirable  not  to  leave  unnoticed.    In  the  first 

place,  the  alterations  that  would  probably  be  introduced 
would  almost  certainly  be  very  limited  both  in, number  and 
in  degree.  When  made,  however,  they  would  generally  be 
found  to  be  clear  and  even  necessary  improvements.  If, 
then,  we  are  to  make  the  extreme  assumption  that  Noncon- 
formists as  a  body  would  be  likely  publicly  to  disavow  the 
revised  Volume,  we  must  not  fail  to  obseiwe  that  they  would 
thus  find  themselves  committed  to  a  disavowal  of  a  certain 
number  of  corrections  which  every  scholar  in  the  world  would 
pronounce  necessary,  if  the  duty  of  faithfulness  to  God's  Word 
is  in  any  degree  to  be  accepted  as  a  principle.  But,  in  the 
second  place,  there  is  no  reason  whatever  for  thinking  that 
Nonconformists  would  act  in  such  a  narrow  spirit;  nay,  there 
is  positive  evidence  to  the  contrary.  This  very  year  opened 
with  a  very  able  article  in  the  January  number  of  the  British 
Quarterly  on  the  subject  of  revision,  from  which  it  is  perfectly 
clear  that  all  the  more  intelligent  Nonconformists  not  only 
would  interpose  no  sectarian  obstacles,  but  would  even  readi- 
ly take  their  part  in  the  great  work,  if  invited  by  competent 
authority,  and  on  the  equal  terms  of  common  scholarship. 
The  subject  has  also  been  noticed  in  several  of  the  public 
organs  of  the  difierent  dissenting  bodies,  and  in  none,  so  far 
as  they  have  fallen  under  our  observation,  in  other  than  tem- 


]  5  8     ELLICOTT  OX  REVISIOX  OF  THE  XEW  TESTAMENT. 

perate  and  even  favorable  terms.  Just  views  seem  to  be  en- 
tertained of  the  nature  of  the  work,  and  no  indications  have 
yet  appeared  of  any  desire  to  gain  party  triumphs  by  assaults 
on  received  ecclesiastical  terms,  or  by  changes  in  the  existing 
religious  vocabulary.  A  few  years  ago  it  was  different.  Able 
writers  like  Marsh*  seemed  to  consider  it  impossible  for  re- 
visers of  different  denominations  to  act  in  proper  concert, 
and  have  used,  at  a  period  no  farther  back  than  1861,  the 
strongest  language  as  to  the  hopelessness  of  united  action. 
It  is  just,  however,  to  the  intelligent  critic  whose  name  has 
been  mentioned,  to  add,  that  he  expressed  a  belief  that  a 
time  certainly  was  coming  when  there  might  be  such  an  in- 
crease in  harmony  and  in  knowledge  as  to  make  a  union  in 
revision  a  possibility. 

And  we  verily  believe  that  the  time  is  now  close  at  hand. 
Churchmen  wii-  -^^t  Only  is  there  an  apparent  willingness  in 
liug  to  co-operate.  Xonconformists  to  take  part  in  the  work,  but 
there  is  clear  evidence  on  the  part  of  the  Church  that  she  is 
fully  prepared  to  ask  for  their  aid  and  co-operation.  No 
clearer  proof  can  be  given  of  this  than  the  recommendations 
of  an  important  committee  of  the  Southern  Convocation  which 
have  been  recently  accepted  by  both  houses,  and  we  trust  will 
shortly  be  acted  upon.f  There  the  readiness  to  co-operate  is 
specified  in  clear  and  authoritative  words. 

*  See  Lectures  on  the  English  Language,  p.  G41, 

t  The  resolutions  referred  to  are  as  follows : 

"1.  That  it  is  desirable  that  a  revision  of  the  Authorized  Version  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  be  undertaken. 

"2.  That  the  revision  be  so  conducted  as  to  comprise  both  marginal  ren- 
derings, and  such  emendations  as  it  may  be  found  necessaiy  to  insert  in  the 
text  of  the  Authorized  Version. 

"3.  That  in  the  above  resolutions  we  do  not  contemplate  any  new  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible,  or  any  alteration  of  the  language,  except  where,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  most  competent  scholars,  such  change  is  necessary. 

"4.  That  in  such  necessary  changes,  the  style  of  the  language  employed  in 
the  existing  version  be  closely  followed. 

"5.  That  it  is  desirable  that  Convocation  should  nominate  a  body  of  its 
own  members  to  undertake  the  work  of  revision,  who  shall  be  at  liberty  to 
invite  the  co-operation  of  any  eminent  for  scholarship,  to  whatever  nation  or 
religious  body  they  may  belong." 


OliJECTIOXS  TO  r.EVISIOX,  VALID  AXD  IXVALID.         159 

But,  ill  the  third  place,  it  may  be  observed  that  not  only  are 
Example  of  co-op-  there  these  evidences  on  either  side  of  M-illino;- 

eratiou.    The  Ta-  .  ,  . 

mil  Version.  ness  to  co-operate  in  making  yet  more  perfect 

the  translation  of  our  common  Bible,  but  there  are  actual  ex- 
amples of  the  work  having  been  done  in  perfect  harmony,  in 
the  case  of  translations  of  the  Scripture  into  foreign  languages 
for  missionary  purposes.  A  very  striking  instance  of  this  has 
been  recently  given  by  the  completion  of  the  Tamil  Version. 
This  very  important  work  has  now  been  finished,  after  more 
than  eleven  years  of  united  labor,  in  which  missionaries  from 
the  Church  of  England  have  worked  in  perfect  harmony  with 
missionaries  from  other  religious  bodies.  In  the  narrative  of 
their  labors  Avhich  has  lately  been  published*  there  are  no 
traces  of  those  dissensions  on  ecclesiastical  words  which  re- 
cent writers  in  newspapers  have  confidently  predicted  will  be 
the  case  at  home.  No  notices,  or  even  hints  of  any  sectarian 
difficulties,  which  certainly  might  have  been  exjDected  to  show 
themselves  in  a  new  work,  and  in  a  period  so  long  as  eleven 


The  names  of  the  committee  who  were  appointed  to  draw  up  the  report  are 
as  follows:  Bishop  of  Winchester,  Bishop  of  St.  David's,  Bishop  ofLlandaff, 
Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol,  Bishop  of  Ely,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  Bishop 
of  Salisbury,  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  The  Prolocutor  (Dr.  Bickersteth), 
Dean  of  Canterbury  (Dr.  Alford),  Dean  of  Westminster  (Dr.  Stanley),  Dean 
of  Lincoln  (Dr.  Jeremie),  Archdeacon  of  Bedford  (Mr.  Eose),  Archdeacon  of 
Exeter  (Mr.  Freeman),  Archdeacon  of  Kochester  and  St.  Alban's  (Dr.  Grant), 
Chancellor  Massingberd,  Canon  Blakesley,  Canon  How,  Canon  Selwyn,  Canon 
Swainson,  Canon  Woodgate,  Dr.  Jebb,  Dr.  Kay,  and  Mr,  De  Winton.  We  are 
glad  now  to  subjoin  that  the  report  was  accepted  unanimously  by  the  Upper 
House,  and  with  substantial  unanimity  by  the  Lower  House.  A  committee 
has  been  appointed,  consisting  of  eight  bishops  and  eight  presbyters,  to  take 
the  necessary  steps  for  giving  effect  to  the  resolutions.  The  committee  con- 
sists of  the  eleven  names  first  specified  in  the  above  list,  and  those  of  the 
Archdeacon  of  Bedford,  Canon  Blakesley,  Canon  Selwyn,  Dr.  Jebb,  and  Dr. 
Kay. 

*  See  the  very  interesting  account  of  this  important  work  recently  published 
by  the  Bible  Society.  This  pamphlet  is  especially  commended  to  the  attention 
of  the  impartial  reader.  It  is  singiUarly  illustrative  of  many  of  our  supposed 
present  difficulties,  and  shows  how,  by  the  blessing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they 
have  been  sunnounted  by  the  earnest  and  faithful  men  who  took  part  in  the 
work. 


1 60     ELLICOTT  OX  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

years,  find  any  place  in  the  interesting  pamphlet  which  gives 
the  record  of  the  progress  and  completion  of  the  labors.  The 
men  did  their  work  on  the  basis  of  Tamil  scholarship,  and  with 
a  true  sense  of  their  responsibilities,  and  they  have  been  per- 
mitted to  bring  their  faithful  labors  to  a  successful  close.  And 
as  it  lias  been  with  them,  so  we  are  persuaded  it  will  now  be 
among  ourselves.  The  bonds  will  be  reverence  for  God's 
"Word  and  God's  truth,  and  sound  and  practiced  scholarship; 
and  these  will  be  found  too  strong  even  for  religious  preju- 
dices, if  indeed  they  are  to  be  considered  as  likely  to  be  shown 
by  men  of  disciplined  minds  in  matters  of  English  and  Helle- 
nic grammar  and  criticism.  Again  and  again  must  the  gen- 
eral reader  be  reminded  of  the  great  diflerence  between  a 
commentary  and  a  revision.  The  former  work  could  not  be 
executed  by  such  a  mixed  body  as  is  now  under  considera- 
<tion  ;  the  latter  certainly  could,  because  the  appeal  would  lie 
in  all  cases  to  scholarship ;  and  here,  thank  God,  there  is 
neither  High-Church  nor  Low-Church,  neither  conformity  nor 
dissent.  If  the  mass  of  general  readers  could  once  be  per- 
suaded of  this  simple  fact — that  the  more  accurate  the  schol- 
arship, the  more  tolerant  and  charitable  are  men  found  to  be 
when  in  co-operation^  we  should  hear  far  less  gloomy  anticipa- 
tions of  the  animosities  and  ruptures  that  Ave  are  told  would 
show  themselves  in  a  mixed  body  of  scholars  of  differing 
religious  persuasions.  But  those  who  indulge  in  such  antici- 
pations ai-e  not  scholars,  and  have  never  done  an  hour's  work 
of  revision  in  co-operation  with  others.  Their  words,  how- 
ever, have  some  power  to  do  harm. 

"We  may  come  to  the  conclusion,  then,  that  there  is  not,  at 
the  present  time  at  any  rate,  much  force  in  the  second  objec- 
tion. A  few  years  back  it  would  have  had  much  weight,  but 
these  fesv  years  have  brought  with  them  many  changes  both 
for  good  and  for  evil.  The  utmost  that  can  be  urged  is  that 
a  revised  version  might  not  win  its  way  by  equal  rates  of 
progress  among  churchmen  and  dissenters,  but  the  anticipa- 
tion that  there  would  be  a  Church  Bible  and  a  Dissenter's 


OBJECTIONS  TO  REVISION,  VALID  AND  INVALID.         igj 

Bible  is  really  an  anticijiation  only  fit  for  a  commonplace  in 
a  jjopular  speech,  or  an  argument  in  a  newspaper  letter. 

The  question  of  our  relation  to  the  American  and  colonial 
Relation  to  coio-    churches  is  Very  different,  and  confessedly  is  not 

nial  churches  and        ... 

America.  Without  its  difficulties.     These  two  considera- 

tions, however,  go  far  to  modify  them :  first,  that  the  changes 
will,  as  we  have  shown,  probably  be  few ;  and,  secondly,  that 
there  will  not  be  any  antecedent  jealousies  and  prejudices 
(such  as  between  the  Church  and  Dissent)  which  could  hin- 
der the  changes  being  accepted,  if  really  good.  The  result 
probably  will  be,  that  any  changes  that  ultimately  obtain  full 
acceptance  at  home  will  very  readily  be  adopted  both  by  the 
American  and  colonial  churches.  The  question  will  really 
turn  on  the  amount  and  nature  of  the  changes.  If  they  ai-e 
few  and  good,  they  will  be  accepted ;  if  not,  they  will  not 
meet  with  acceptance  either  at  home  or  abroad. 

The  third  objection  is  perhaps  the  most  important  of  the 
The  third  objcc-   three,  but  it  is  one  which,  by  the  nature  of  the 

tion  belongs  to  ,     .  "^ 

the  future.  casc,  it  IS  not  Very  easy  to  meet.    "We  are  trans- 

ferred into  the  future,  and  have  very  few  data  derived  from 
the  past  on  which  to  hazard  a  forecast.  Former  revisions 
certainly  succeeded  each  other  after  no  lengthened  intervals, 
but  then  they  were  revisions  which  Avere  suggested  by  the 
existing  state  of  the  translation  and  the  changeful  character 
of  the  times.  "VYe  have  now,  as  all  are  ready  to  admit,  a 
thoroughly  good,  though  not  a  perfect  translation.  It  has 
maintained  its  ground  in  its  present  form  for  260  years.  It 
has  secured  a  firm  hold  on  the  affections  of  the  people.  It 
has  become  also  a  sort  of  literary  monument  of  which  every 
Englishman  and  every  English  critic  of  eminence  (if  we  ex- 
cept a  few  ill-natured  remarks  of  Mr.  Hallam*)  is  justly  proud. 
These  are  facts  which  certainly  seem  to  suggest  the  persua- 
sion that  one  cautious  and  reverent  retouching  of  the  old 
picture  might  be  tolerated,  but  that  all  parties,  after  they 
had  accepted  the  w^ork — and  this  it  would  take  time  to  bring 
*  See  his  Literature  of  Europe,  vol.  ii.,  p.  58,  Harper  &  Brothers,  N.York. 


1 C2     ELLICOTT  OX  HE  VISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

about — would  very  distinctly  concur  in  deprecating  any  far- 
ther manipulations.  The  really  monumental  character  of  our 
version  is  its  best  protection  against  progressive  change,  and 
this  protection,  we  can  not  help  feeling  persuaded,  as  long 
as  England  is  England,  will  be  always  found  available  and 
sufficient. 

But,  as  we  have  already  said,  these  are  but  forecasts  in 
Faithfulness  re-  answer  to  forecasts.  Different  thinkers  would 
quires  the  work.  pi.ol)ably  conie  to  different  conclusions.  Bias, 
again,  may  influence  very  seriously  our  predictions  and  an- 
ticipations. So  it  may  be  best,  perhaps,  to  leave  the  objec- 
tion as  Ave  find  it,  and  rather  to  put  on  the  other  side  what 
many  feel  to  be  their  bounden  duty,  viz.,  to  place  before  our 
people  God's  truth  in  as  faithful  a  form  as  the  natui-e  of  the 
work  permits.  If  there  are  errors,  they  ought  to  be  removed 
for  the  truth's  sake.  If  there  are  inaccuracies  which  give 
false  tinges  to  deduced  doctrines,  surely  we  seem  called  upon 
to  revise  them  now,  whatever  may  be  done  in  the  future,  in 
accordance  with  the  known  and,  for  the  most  part,  fixed  prin- 
ciples of  grammar  and  scholarship.  Surely,  whatever  may 
be  our  anticipations  of  future  proceedings,  whatever  our  hopes 
of  farther  discoveries,  we  do  seem  bound,  for  very  thankful- 
ness, to  take  the  critical  aid  that  has  been  so  mysteriously 
extended  to  us,  and  with  the  Sinaitic  Manuscript,  and  the 
vast  accumulated  knowledge  of  other  manuscripts  that  has 
of  late  been  made  available,  to  prepare  ourselves  reverently 
to  bring  up  our  English  Testament  to  tliat  standard  of  cor- 
rectness which  is  now  clearly  attainable. 

If  this  is  the  duty  of  the  present,  then  we  must  be  content 
to  leave  the  morrow  to  be  careful  for  the  things  of  itself. 
"We  might  justly  have  been  anxious  if  the  amount  of  change 
had  seemed  likely  to  have  been  greater  than  we  have  now 
found  it  likely  to  be.  After  the  estimate  we  have  formed, 
and  the  results  arrived  at,  when  taken  in  combination  with 
the  calls  of  duty  to  which  we  have  just  adverted,  it  does 
seem  proper,  whatever  the  future  may  be,  cautiously  and 


OBJECTIONS  TO  EEYISIOF,  VALID  AND  INVALID.         \q^ 

reverently  to  go  forward,  and  if  the  thii'd  objection  weighs 
with  us,  to  set  now  an  example  to  the  future  of  our  circum- 
sj)ectness,  our  sense  of  responsibility,  and  our  guarded  rever- 
ence for  England's  greatest  treasure..  The  nature  of  our  ac- 
tion now  may  exercise  vast  influence  on  the  future ;  nay,  it 
may  not  only  give  the  tone  to  all  changes  in  days  yet  to 
come,  but  may  prevent  rash  and  sweeping  changes,  which 
inaction,  at  the  present  time,  may  only  too  probably  bring 
about. 

So  let  us  reverently  and  cautiously  go  forward,  and  now, 
lastly,  consider  how  and  in  what  manner  we  may  best  pursue 
our  onward  way.  The  consideration  of  this  question  will  form 
the  subject  of  our  concluding  chapter. 


1G4     ELLICOTT  OJV  BEVISION'  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

BEST   MANNER    OF   PROCEEDING   WITH   THE   WORK. 

We  may  now  suitably  bring  our  considerations  to  a  close 
by  a  few  remarks  on  the  authority  under  which  it  would  seem 
best  that  a  revision  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  should  be  under- 
taken, and  on  the  most  hopeful  mode  of  proceeding  with  the 
actual  Avork. 

In  reference  to  the  first  question — the  authority  under 
Convocation  the    which  the  work  sliould  be  undertaken — we  have 

proper  authority  ,  .    i    ■, 

for  the  work.  now  happily,  and  we  may  also  rightly  say  prov- 
identially, no  necessity  for  any  lengthened  comments.  The 
question  has  recently,  and  even  subsequently  to  the  printing 
of  the  early  pages  of  this  work,  been  answered  for  us.  The 
Convocation  of  Canterbury  has  not  only  given  its  weighty 
aj)proval  to  the  undertaking,  but  has  also  appointed  a  com- 
mittee of  sixteen  men,*  with  power  to  add  to  their  number, 
to  make  a  beginning,  and  in  due  time  to  place  some  sjiecimens 
of  their  work  before  Convocation  and  the  nation  at  large. 
That  committee  will  have  met  and  decided  on  its  future  plan 

*  The  names  have  been  specified  above :  see  the  note  on  p.  ir>9.  In  refer- 
ence to  this  number  of  sixteen,  it  is  right  here  to  notice  the  wisdom  and  for- 
bearance shown  by  the  Lower  House.  Several  of  our  readers  may  know  that 
when  a  joint  commission  of  both  houses  of  Convocation  is  appointed,  it  is  cus- 
tomary for  the  number  appointed  from  the  Lower  House  to  be  double  that 
from  the  Upper.  In  the  present  case,  however,  on  its  being  pointed  out  that 
so  large  a  body  as  sixteen,  in  addition  to  the  eight  bishops,  would  practically 
much  limit  the  numbers  that  could  be  co-opted  from  the  general  company  of 
Biblical  scholars  not  belonging  to  Convocation  (the  committee  otherwise  being 
likely  to  become  utterly  unwieldy),  the  Lower  House,  alike  with  good  sense 
and  good  feeling,  accepted  the  suggestion  that  the  number  from  their  body 
should  be  reduced  to  the  same  number  as  that  from  the  Upper  House.  See 
the  recent  debates  in  Convocation,  and  the  very  sensible  speech  of  Lord  Al- 
wyne  Compton  in  The  Guardian  for  May  ]  8,  p.  585. 


BSST  MANNER  OF  PBOCEEDniO  WITH  THE  WOBK.       165 

of  operations  before  these  lines  will  come  before  the  eye  of  the 
reader. 

So  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury  has  taken  up  the  great 
and  national  work.  Yes,  the  work  is  marked  out,  and  some 
of  the  future  laborers  are  already  called  forth  to  commence  it. 
At  such  a  time  and  in  such  a  cause,  is  it  too  much  humbly  to 
ask  that  the  prayers  of  all  those  that  love  the  Word  of  God 
in  sincerity  may  constantly  be  offered  up  for  all  those  who, 
in  these  anxious  times,  either  are  now  or  hereafter  shall  be 
called  to  take  part  in  tlie  work,  and  who,  in  tlie  prosecution 
of  that  work,  will  need  all  the  support  that  such  prayers  are 
especially  permitted  to  minister? 

Convocation  has  undertaken  the  work;  and  with  this  issue 
many  at  first  will  be,  and  will  probably  avow  themselves  to 
be,  utterly  dissatisfied.  Such  a  work,  they  will  urge,  ought 
to  have  been  committed  to  a  royal  commission ;  the  highest 
earthly  authority  in  this  realm  should  have  summoned  to- 
gether the  revisers  of  the  future,  and  assigned  to  them  their 
duties  and  their  work.  The  national  treasure  should  have 
been  intrusted  to  men  chosen  out  from  the  nation  at  large, 
not  to  the  members  of  an  antiquated  body,  and  to  the  pre- 
carious aid  that  might  be  extended  to  them  by  those  who 
are  without.  Such  thoughts  are  natural,  and  such  thoughts 
will  find  public  expression,  but  they  will  not  be,  after  all,  the 
thoughts  of  the  sober  observers  of  the  days  in  which  we  now 
are  living ;  they  will  not  be  the  expressions  of  those  who  best 
and  most  intelligently  appreciate  the  mighty  changes  Avhich 
each  year  that  is  passing  is  now  silently  bringing  with  it. 
Convocation  is  really  the  best  authority  under  which  such  a 
work  could  be  undertaken,  and  (not  to  mention  others)  for 
this  one,  simple,  and  homely  reason,  that  what  we  want  is  a 
revised  version,  and  not  an  impi'oved  version;  and  that  the 
latter  would  almost  certainly  be  the  result  of  the  labors  of 
such  a  royal  commission  as  would  inevitably  be  called  to  the 
work  in  these  present  days.  It  would  be  constructed,  almost 
certainly,  on  the  principle  of  including  all  representative  men 


166     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISIOy  OF  THE  XEW  TESTAMENT. 

who  had  any  sufficient  claim  to  scholarship,  and  a  very  repre- 
sentative version  would  such  a  body  most  assuredly  produce. 
No,  we  may  be  certainly  thankful  that  those  who  stand  high- 
est in  the  national  councils  have  shown  no  disposition  to  en- 
courage these  ambitious  and  ultimately  self- frustrating  de- 
signs. We  may  almost  trace  the  providential  oi-dering  of  God 
in  the  turn  that  the  Revision  Question  has  lately  taken.  We 
have  now,  at  any  i-ate,  no  fear  of  an  ovei*-corrected  version. 
The  men  now  appointed,  and  those  who  will  be  Invited  to  join 
them,  will  all  feel  alike,  that  they  are  entering  u^son  a  work 
in  which  that  which  will  most  commend  them  to  public  favor 
will  be  the  least  2)ossible  amoimt  of  change  consistent  loith  faith- 
fulness.^ A  royal  commission  would  conceive  itself  to  be  in- 
dependent, and  would  act  accordingly.  A  body,  constituted 
as  the  body  of  revisers  now  will  be  constituted,  will  have  so- 
berly to  consult  public  religious  feeling.  It  Avill  always  have 
before  it  this  plain  fact — that  their  work  can  only  hope  to  take 
the  place  of  the  venerable  version  now  in  our  hands  by  being 
that  version,  not  only  generally  nnd  substantially,  but  that 
version  in  all  its  details  save  only  those  where  amending 
hands  may  have  removed  some  scattei'ed  errors  and  imper- 
fections. Such  a  body  will,  by  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
even  independently  of  those  higher  princii^les  by  which  it 
will,  beyond  all  doubt,  be  influenced,  know  perfectly  well  that, 
to  achieve  any  success,  it  must  labor  patiently,  vigilantly,  and 
sympathizingly ;  and  such  a  knowledge  will  act  as  a  healthy 
incentive.  It  will  only  have  itself  and  its  own  efibrts  to  trust 
to.  To  succeed  is  really  little  more  than  its  very  condition 
of  existence.     To  fail  is  to  be  disbanded  and  dissipated. 

When  we  thus  soberly  consider  the  problem  and  the  pro- 
posed mode  of  solving  it,  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  even  those 
who  may  at  first  have  felt  the  strongest  prejudice  against  a 
so-called  national  work  being  attempted  by  members  of  the 
Convocation  of  Canterbury  (and  we  hope,  ultimately,  of  York) 

*  See  the  comments  in  The  Times  for  May  6,  already  referred  to  on  p.  8G. 
This  will  probably  be  one  of  the  leading  rules. 


BEST  MAXXER  OP  PROCEEDIXO  WITH  THE  WORE.      1G7 

and  those  scholars  who  may  be  invited  to  join  them,  will  in 
the  end  admit  that  it  is  best  that  matters  should  have  taken 
this  their  present  and  almost  unlooked-for  turn.  We  may 
honestly  even  more  than  acquiesce  in  the  present  arrange- 
ment, and  wish  all  concerned  in  it  a  hearty  God-speed. 

Of  course,  at  i:)resent  many  things  are  uncertain,  and  must 
The  future  of  the  ^^  Considered  as  yet  in  the  realm  of  hope  rather 
work  uncertain.    ^^^^^  ^^^^^  ^f  knowledge  and  experience.     We 

can  not  tell  confidently  to  what  extent  those  without  will  join 
in  the  work,*  nor,  if  they  do  join,  can  we  certainly  predict  that 
all  will  act  together  with  easiness  and  harmony.  We  can  not 
be  sure  that  they  may  not  all  be  disposed  to  attempt  a  far 
more  sweeping  revision  than  the  Church  and  even  nation 
would  tolerate.  We  dare  not  confidently  say  that  they  may 
not  begin  Avith  caution  and  moderation,  and  be  accelerated 
into  innovation.  All  such  things  are  possible ;  but  we  may 
reasonably  have  hope,  and  even  well-grounded  hope,  that  it 
will  be  otherwise,  and  that  both  Conformity  and  Nonconform- 
ity will  act  in  this  matter  both  wisely  and  fraternally,  and  will 

*  It  is  especially  cheering  to  observe  that  the  practical  invitation  of  Convo- 
cation to  those  who  are  not  members  of  the  Churcli  of  England  has  been  re- 
sponded to  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  given.  The  writer  of  a  thoroughly 
f.iendly  article  in  The  Freeman  of  May  13  expresses  the  hope  that  "Noncon- 
formists will  not  be  slow  to  respond  to  any  invitation  to  co-operate  in  tlie  task 
inaugurated  by  Convocation,"  and  closes  his  remarks  with  the  following  wise 
and  conciliatory  words:  "We  earnestly  hope  that,  should  any  of  our  number 
be  summoned  to  the  assistance  of  the  Committee  of  Convocation,  they  will 
immediately  respond.  Their  task  is  simplified  b}''  the  determination  to  revise, 
and  not  to  re-translate.  A  new  translation  would  raise  the  vexed  question  of 
the  rendering  of  the  words  which  relate  to  baptism.  Revision,  we  conclude, 
leaves  that  question  where  it  was.  In  any  case,  fidelity  to  the  original  text 
must  be  the  ruling  principle,  and  he  that  hath  the  Divine  Word  in  the  language 
in  which  it  was  originally  written  should  give  it  ftiitiifidly,  in  its  exact  equiva- 
lent, to  the  English-speaking  peoples  of  the  world.  We  wish  the  enterprise 
the  divine  blessing  and  acceptance  with  the  churches,  and  counsel  our  readers 
to  follow  the  wise  and  liberal  lead  of  the  bishops  (whose  recommendations  we 
cordially  indorse)  in  tlie  proposed  I'evision  of  the  English  version  of  the  Bible." 
It  may  be  remarked  that  we  had  ourselves  anticipated  this  very  expression  of 
opinion,  and  had  ventured  positively  to  say  for  Baptist  scholars  what  is  here 
said  by  themselves.  See  above,  p.  83,  note  *,  which  was  written  prior  to  the 
words  here  quoted. 


168     ELLICOTT  ON  KEVISION  OF  THE  XEW  TESTAMENT. 

only  vie  with  each  other  in  reverent  solicitude  to  do  faithfully 
that  which  they  have  been  called  to  undertake,  and  in  that 
wise  fear  and  trembling  with  which  the  devout  scholar  of  the 
nineteenth  century  should  approach  the  revision  of  the  no- 
blest version  of  the  written  words  of  patriarchs,  prophets, 
evangelists,  and  apostles  that  the  world  has  ever  known. 

We  may  now  pass,  secondly  and  lastly,  to  a  brief  consider- 
ation of  the  manner  in  which  the  work  should  be  undertaken 
and  performed. 

The  chief  principles  have  already  been  laid  down  in  the 
The  work  should  foregoing  pages.  We  have  already  specified 
be  doue  together.  ^^iQ  leading  canons  which  reflection  and  expe- 
rience alike  seem  to  suggest  as  the  fundamental  rules  that 
must  be  followed  in  a  work  such  as  that  to  which  we  are 
now  definitely  pledged.  These  we  have  already  seen  are. 
First,  that  the  work  must  be  done  round  a  common  table. 
Mind  must  act  on  mind;  thought  on  thought.  We  must 
have  no  ambitious  schemes  of  collecting  opinions  by  corre- 
spondence or  otherwise,  unless  those  collected  opinions  are 
to  be  discussed  by  the  gathered  body  of  revisers.  We  must 
not  delegate  to  any  small  committee  the  work  of  consolidating 
or  harmonizingthe  opinions  of  the  many  that  may  with  profit 
be  called  into  counsel.  No ;  both  the  revisers  of  the  Old  and 
of  the  New  Testament  respectively  must  do  their  work  to- 
gether, and  discuss  not  only  their  own  proposals,  but  also  all 
the  suggestions  of  others,  in  their  own  common  rooms  of  coun- 
cil. On  this,  taught  by  experience,  we  lay  the  greatest  stress. 
And  not  only  the  present,  but  the  past  confirms  this  view. 
We  have  seen  that,  in  a  great  degree,  the  success  of  our  pres- 
ent Authorized  Version  was  due  to  co-operative  union,  and 
that  the  points  in  which  it  partially  failed,  viz.,  consistency  of 
renderings,  and  harmony  in  the  application  of  grammatical 
principles,  are  just  those  points  in  which  a  system  which  gave 
the  New  Testament  to  two  different  companies,  under  two 
difierent  chairmen,  might  beforehand  be  expected  to  fail.  But 
if  we  thus  press  for  union  in  work,  we  also  insist,  with  equal 


BEST  MANXEli  OF  PROCEEDIXG  WITH  THE  WORK.        kjO 

earnestness,  on  the  necessity  of  individual  labor  in  private. 
To  make  such  a  union  a  truly  co-operative  union,  every  mem- 
ber of  it  would  have  to  Avork  privately  as  well  as  publicly. 
Each  scholar  belonging  to  the  body  would  of  course  come 
with  his  corrections  carefully  made  in  private,  reconsic^ered, 
and  formally  committed  to  writing.  With  these  he  would 
take  his  place  at  the  council-table,  and  these  he  would  com- 
jjare  Avith  the  corrections  similarly  made  by  the  rest  of  his 
brethren.  The  changes  ultimately  agreed  upon  would  be  the 
result  of  the  comparison,  and  of  the  discussion  which  each 
item  in  the  comparison  would  be  liable  to  call  out.  Many 
corrections  would  be  found  to  have  been  made  by  the  major- 
ity, and  would  at  once  be  accepted  by  all  present;  others 
would  require  consideration ;  a  certain  portion  would  call 
out  discussion,  and  could  only  be  finally  settled  by  a  formal 
vote. 

While,  then,  we  thus  urge,  as  the  first  principle,  co-operative 
union,  we  not  the  less  insist  u^on  previous  and  formal  prepa- 
ration in2}rivate,  so  as  to  concentrate  attention  on  what  might 
seem,  on  deliberation,  to  require  it,  and  to  obviate  all  improper 
waste  of  time  in  discussion  of  mere  proposals  of  the  moment. 
If  this  would  seem  to  be  our  first  principle,  the  second 
Experience  the   would  Certainly  scem  to  be  the  due  recognition 
best  guide.        ^^  experience  as  the  surest  guide.    In  other  words, 
the  work  at  first  must  be  done  tentatively.    A  careful  record 
of  principles  apparently  arrived  at,  and  even  of  renderings  of 
passages  marked  by  certain  grammatical  characteristics,  e.g., 
hypothetical  sentences  involving  what  could  not  or  would 
not  happen,*  past  participles  with  finite  verbs,  the  use  of 

*  "We  may  gi^•e  as  an  instance  such  passages  as  John  v.,  46  ;  viii.,  10,  al. , 
where  we  have  the  imperfect  in  both  clauses,  when  contrasted  with  such  pas- 
sages as  Matt,  xi.,  21,  where  both  clauses  have  the  aorist,  or  with  such  passages 
as  Heb.  iv.,8,  where  there  is  an  aorist  in  the  first  clause  and  an  imperfect  in 
the  second,  or  conversely,  as  John  xiv.,  28,  where  the  imperfect  is  in  the  first 
clause  and  the  aorist  in  the  second.  Let  any  one  try  to  lay  down  a  settled 
principle  for  translating  these,  and  he  will  find  it  extremely  difficult  to  carry 
it  out  in  easy  and  idiomatic  English.  Even  in  the  simplest  case — imperfect 
in  both  clauses  and  aorist  in  both  clauses— if  we  try  alwavs  to  translate  the 

Q  ^i 


1 VO     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

"  shall"  or  "  shall  have"  in  the  translation  of  the  aorist  sub- 
junctive after  certain  temporal  particles,  etc. — all  would  re- 
quire to  be  noted  down  at  the  time  and  to  be  carefully  regis- 
tered. There  Avould  thus  be  a  large  and  increasino-  amount 
of  general  principles  Avhich  would  be  continually  tested  by 
actual  practice,  and  ultimately  confirmed  and  consolidated. 
With  these  thus  acquired  and  thus  verified,  the  whole  Avork 
would  be  reconsidered,  and  the  result  thus  arrived  at  accepted 
for  that  edition  as  final. 

The  third  principle  would  be  to  preserve  the  mean  between 
Revision  should  pretermission  of  what  ought  to  have  been  cor- 

be  guarded,  but  ° 

sufficieut.  rected,  and  mere  improvement  in  renderings 

when  tlie  necessity  for  the  change  Avas  not  distinctly  appre- 
ciable. In  other  Avords,  the  revision  Avould  have  to  be  alike 
conservative  and  suflicient ;  carried  out  on  the  general  prin- 
ciple of  the  least  possible  change  on  the  one  liand,  and  yet 
honorably  imitative  of  that  extreme  mgilance  Avhieli  (in  the 
comparison  in  chap.  iii.  of  those  passages  as  given  in  our  oAvn 
Aversion,  Avith  the  same  passages  as  given  in  Tyndale  and  the 
early  versions)  we  have  already  observed  to  be  such  a  special 
and  honorable  chai'acteristic  of  the  revision  of  1611.  To  in- 
novate, or  Avhat  is  called  "improve,"  is  a  grievous  mistake  on 
the  one  side,  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  there  is  a  di- 
rectly contrary  mistake,  Avhich,  if  made,  might  lead  to  very 
unwelcome  consequences.  If  the  revision  Avere  not  fairly  a 
sufficient  one,  it  would  certainly  be  followed  at  no  great 
length  of  time  by  another  attempt,  and  the  very  evil,  of 
Avhich  Ave  have  been  forced  to  admit  the  possibility  in  our 
last  chapter,  would  become  real  and  actual.  To  use  a  home- 
ly simile,  if  we  create  an  appetite  for  revision  we  must  be 
careful  to  satisfy  it.  No  doubt  this  canon  is  a  far  easier  one 
to  state  than  to  folloAV.  This  golden  mean  of  correcting  just 
what  ought  to  be  corrected  is  excessively  hard  to  maintain ; 

formei-  by  ' '  would"  and  the  latter  by  ' '  would  have"  (not  an  unreasonable  prin- 
ciple), we  shall  find  many  a  passage  that  will  put  even  this  rule  to  a  test  that 
it  will  not  in  practice  be  found  able  successfully  to  bear. 


BEST  MANNER  OF  PROCEEDING  WITH  THE  WORK.      \>j\ 

Still,  we  feel  confident  that  if  the  general  reasonableness  and 
truth  of  this  principle  be  fairly  recognized,  and  if  the  attempt 
be  made,  as  far  as  possible,  to  act  on  it,  experience  will  grad- 
ually make  the  observance  of  it  more  and  more  easy  and  in- 
stinctive. The  principle,  of  course,  really  involves  all  that 
has  already  been  said  on  the  limits  of  revision,  and  includes 
numberless  degrees  of  application  ;  yet  we  are  persuaded,  if 
once  the  reviser  clearly  appreciates  the  difference  between  a 
mere  debatable  improvement  and  a  thoroughly  necessary  cor- 
rection, he  will  be  enabled,  after  a  moderate  amount  of  prac- 
tice, to  decide  with  approximate  success  in  those  many  cases 
which  lie  on  the  border-land,  and  in  the  just  estimate  of  which 
the  strongest  call  is  made  upon  the  intelligence  and  judgment 
of  the  reviser.  Our  own  corrections  in  the  fifth  chapter  will, 
we  have  no  doubt,  supply  the  acute  reader  with  several  in- 
stances in  which  we  ourselves  have  unwittingly  crossed  the 
frontier,  and  have  introduced  unnecessary  corrections;  still, 
if  it  be  so,  we  shall  have,  at  any  rate,  illustrated  the  truth  of 
another  principle,  often  insisted  on  in  these  pages,  that  no 
single  mind  can  produce  a  thoroughly  good  and  consistent 
revision. 

The  fourth  principle,  which  it  would  seem  most  desirable 
Theoidvocabuia-  Carefully  to  obscrve,  and  in  every  case  strictly 
ry  to  be  used.  ^^  ^^^  ^^p^j^  throughout  the  work,  has  been  al- 
ready briefly  alluded  to  in  the  introductory  chapter,  and  may 
now  be  stated  more  fully  and  precisely.  It  relates  to  the 
language  and  vocabulary  to  be  used  in  the  corrections  and 
alterations  that  may  be  introduced,  and  it  may  be  expressed 
as  follows :  In  corrections,  limit  the  choice  of  words  to  the 
vocabulary  of  the  2')'>^esent  version  combined  with  that  of  the 
versions  that  preceded  it  ;*  and  in  alterations,  preserve  as  far 

*  It  seems  desirable  especially  to  include  the  earlier  versions,  with  the  cau- 
tion only  that  the  Rliemish  Version,  from  the  peculiar  nature  of  its  language, 
must  commonly  be  excepted.  It  is  often,  as  has  been  already  remarked  (see 
p.  81),  useful  in  its  vocabulary,  but  so  Latinized  that  it  can  only  be  used  with 
the  utmost  caution.  The  other  versions,  especially  those  of  Tyndale  and  Cov- 
erdale,  may  be  used  very  freely  in  regard  of  the  language  in  which  the  correc- 


1 72     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTA3IENT. 

as  possible  the  rhytlim  and  cadence  of  the  Authorized  Version. 
This  principle  can  not  be  too  strongly  insisted  upon.  It  is  in 
the  choice  of  the  words,  and  the  juxtaposition  of  the  words 
when  chosen,  that  the  success  of  any  revision  will  be  found  in 
a  great  degree  to  depend,  and  for  these  three  reasons :  the 
revised  version  must  be  a  popular  version ;  it  must  also  be  a 
version  that  reads  well,  and  can  be  heard  with  the  old  and 
familiar  pleasure  Avith  which  our  present  version  is  always 
listened  to ;  it  must,  thirdly,  be  such  that  no  consciousness 
of  novelty  of  turn  or  expression  is  awakened  in  the  mind  of 
hearer  or  reader.  In  a  word,  we  must  never  be  reminded  that 
we  are  not  hearing  the  Old  version,  and  must  only  be  brought 
to  perceive  the  revision  when  we  read  it  over  thoughtfully 
in  private.  Such  a  result  can  only  be  obtained  by  making 
the  correction  in  words  chosen  out  of  (so  to  speak)  a  strictly 
Biblical  vocabulary,  and  also  by  the  mechanical  but  very  nec- 
essary proceeding  of  having  each  chapter,  when  completed, 
read  aloud,  slowly  and  continuously,  by  one  of  the  body  of 
revisers  to  his  assembled  brethren.  Many  a  correction  which 
the  eye  and  inward  feeling  might  have  been  willing  to  accejit 
will  be  beneficially  challenged  by  the  simple  yet  subtle  pi*ocess 
of  the  hearing  of  the  outward  ear.  This  very  homely  sugges- 
tion will  be  found  of  some  practical  usefulness. 

^\iQ  fifth  princij)le  is  moi'e  one  of  detail,  but  still  it  seems 
Vote  not  to  be  ^o  iuvolvc  in  it  SO  much  of  common  sense  and 
hurried.  practical  wisdom  that  it  perhaps  deserves  a  place 

among  the  leading  principles  Ave  are  now  specifying,  and  it 
may  be  stated  in  the  following  rule :  In  every  passage  where 
there  may  be  distinct  differences  of  opinion,  and  decided  ex- 
pressions of  it,  reserve  the  taking  of  the  vote  thereon  till  the 
beginning  of  the  next  meeting.     Let  the  arguments  for  the 

tions  are  to  be  clothed.  Frequently  they  will  be  found  to  contain  the  very 
alteration  we  might  wish  to  introduce,  and  herein  we  shall  supplement  the 
work  of  1 6 II .  The  translators  of  that  day  were  bidden  to  revert  to  the  older 
versions,  but  it  has  been  already  observed  that  they  did  this  very  imperfectly. 
See  p.  80,  and  Westcott,  History  of  the  English  Bible,  p.  339. 


BEST  JLiXXEB  OF  PROCEEDIXG  ^y IT II  THE  WORK.      173 

different  renderings  be  fully  stated  and  concluded  at  the  prior 
meeting,  so  that  nothing  remains  but  the  decision  between 
two  or  taore  competing  corrections;  but  let  that  decision,  as 
we  have  said,  be  made  at  the  subsequent  meeting,  after  time 
has  been  taken  for  jivivate  reconsideration,  and  after  every 
trace  of  that  slight  irritation  which  is  often  called  out  in  the 
very  best  of  us  by  opposing  argument  and  by  the  keenness 
of  discussion  has  entirely  disappeared.  It  should  be  a  fixed 
rule  that  the  discussion  should  not  be  reopened  when  the  vote 
is  taken,  unless  with  the  consent  of  two  thirds,  as  otherwise 
the  very  evil  which  this  rule  is  designed  to  repress  would  be 
again  called  into  existence  and  operation.  Such  a  rule  re- 
quires but  few  comments  to  recommend  it.  It  is  based  on 
the  recognition  of  some  amount  of  poor  human  infirmity, 
which,  in  such  a  calm  and  holy  work  as  the  revision  of 
the  Scriptures,  should  ever  be  sensitivel}^  provided  against. 
There  should  be  no  tinge  of  temper  or  party  spirit  in  any 
correction,  however  slight,  that  may  hereafter  find  its  place 
on  the  pages  of  the  English  Bible. 

Our  sixth  principle  relates  to  the  use  of  the  margin^  and  is 
Test  should  ai-  founded  on  a  due  recognition  of  the  importance 

wavs  be  better  .  '".  .... 

than  margin,  of  two  practical  Opposing  considerations.  On 
the  one  hand,  we  have  already  distinctly  expressed  the  opin- 
ion, and  have  acted  upon  it  in  more  than  one  passage  of  the 
sample  revisions  in  a  foregoing  chapter,  that  in  a  doubtful 
passage  the  present  rendering  should  be  maintained,  unless 
there  was  a  distinct  preponderance  of  argument  and  authori- 
ty against  it,  and  that  the  competing  rendering  should  be 
placed  in  the  margin.  On  the  other  hand,  no  principle  seems 
more  distinctly  to  commend  itself  to  us  than  this,  that  the 
margin  should  not,  in  the  general  judgment  of  scholars,  be 
considered  to  be  exegetically  or  critically  superior  to  the 
text.*     Such  is  the  judgment  commonly  entertained  in  refer- 

*  It  is  with  some  degi-ee  of  regret  that  we  observe  that  the  Bishop  of  Lin- 
coln, in  his  recent  speech  in  Convocation  (see  Guardian  for  May  11,  p.  550), 
still  advocates  what,  we  have  seen,  he  recommended  in  Convocation  thirteen 


]  74     ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

ence  to  our  present  margin ;  such  certainly  should  not  be  the 
judgment  of  scholars  and  divines  in  reference  to  the  margin 
of  the  future.  But  how  can  we  harmonize  these  partially 
conflicting  considerations?  How  can  we  combine  conserva- 
tism Avith  loyalty  to  the  calm  decision  of  an  intelligent  ma- 
jority '?  Perhaps  thus :  First,  by  considering  each  existing 
marginal  rendering  as  so  nearly  of  the  same  authority  as  that 
of  the  text,  that  if  the  majority,  even  by  a  single  vote,*  de- 
cided for  the  margin,  the  margin  and  the  text  should  at  once 
change  places.  Secondly,  in  cases  where  there  may  be  no 
marginal  rendering,  by  providing  that  some  fixed  proportion 
of  votes,  for  example  two  thirds,  should  always  be  required 
before  any  portion  of  the  present  version  ^\\o\\\(\  finally  he  dis- 
placed, whether  to  be  transferred  to  the  margin  or  no.  The 
transference  to  the  margin  would  obviously  apply  only  to 
cases  of  real  importance,  and  in  which  all  would  agree,  which- 
ever side  they  might  take,  that  the  alternative  rendering 

years  ago.  See  above,  p.  15,  note  *.  There  is  nothing  we  may  more  justly 
deprecate  than  any  phm  which  might  contemplate  placing  the  coiTections  that 
may  be  proposed  in  the  margin.  Any  plan  more  likely  to  invite  imperfectly 
considered  corrections  can  hardly  be  conceived.  It  would,  in  fact,  be  thor- 
oughly to  misuse  the  margin  ;  it  would  give  (if  the  bishop's  suggestions  were 
adopted)  very  undesirable  liberty  to  individual  ministers,  viz. ,  as  to  whether 
they  would  read  publicly  the  text  or  the  margin,  and  it  would  also  at  once 
relieve  the  revisers  of  a  large  portion  of  that  deep  feeling  of  responsibility 
which  a  continual  remembrance  that  what  they  are  recommending  \»for  the 
text  would  be  certain  to  bring  with  it.  How  soberly  and  how  thoughtfully 
men  would  form  their  decisions  when  those  decisions  were  to  settle  (if  their 
revision  was  accepted)  what  was  ultimately  to  take  the  place  of  the  present 
words,  and  hereafter  to  be  read  publicly  as  a  portion  of  the  Book  of  Life. 

*  We  may  illustrate  this  by  an  instance  in  one  of  the  two  samjile  portions  of 
the  Authorized  Version  which  we  have  revised  in  chap.  v.  In  Eomansviii., 
27,  it  is  doubtful  whether  on  is  causal  or  simply  demonstrative  ;  whether,  in 
fact,  it  is  to  be  translated  "because" or  "that."  Here  the  A.V.  places  the 
second  of  these  two  translations  in  the  margin.  On  the  principle,  then,  above 
laid  down,  a  bare  majority  would  be  entitled  to  take  this  latter  translation  if 
they  thought  fit.  They  perhaps  would  take  it,  as  the  clause  really  does  not 
strictly  contain  the  reason  for  the  assertion  in  the  foregoing  clause,  but  seems 
rather  to  explain  more  precisely  what  is  just  before  stated  generally,  namely, 
that  He  " maketh  intercession,  etc."  So  Grotius  and  Estius,  and,  among  more 
recent  expositors,  Fritzsche,  Meyer,  Keiche,  and  others. 


BEST  MAXXEH  OF  FROCEEDIXG  WITH  THE  WORE.       175 

ought  specially  to  be  recorded.  On  a  final  revision,  then, 
two  thirds  might  witli  profit  be  required  in  reference  to  all 
difierences  from  the  A.V.,but  in  a  first  revision  the  decision 
of  a  simple  majority  should  always  be  allowed  to  prevail.* 
No  committee  would  be  wise  to  begin  their  work  with  self- 
tied  hands.  Reverence,  experience,  and,^lct  us  not  fail  to  add, 
prayer  for  spiritual  guidance,  would  always  be  found  to  be 
of  more  avail  than  elaborate  rules,  which  the  stress  of  practice 
and  the  diversity  of  circumstances  would  soon  show  to  be 
utterly  nugatory.  Such  a  body  as  the  revisers  should  be 
jealously  careful  to  reserve  to  themselves  all  proper  freedom. 
Rules  and  canons  are  good,  but  elasticity  is  better,  and  in  no 
undertaking  that  can  readily  be  conceived  will  elasticity  be 
found  a  more  necessary  element  than  in  the  translation  of 
Scripture  or  the  revision  of  translations  already  made.  Elas- 
ticity is  the  characteristic  of  every  version  from  the  days  of 
Tyndale  down  to  the  date  of  the  last  revision,  and  elasticity 
must  be  the  characteristic  of  the  revised  version  of  the  future, 
if  it  is  ever  to  displace  or  even  rival  the  fresh,  vigorous,  and 
genuinely  idiomatic  translation  that  bears  the  honored  name 
of  the  Authorized  Version. 

The  seventh  and  last  principle  may  be  very  briefly  stated. 
Follow  the  spirit  ^"<^^  Conveniently  embodied  in  the  following 
of  the  old  rules,  recommendation,  viz.,  that,  mutatis  mutandis^ 
the  revisers  of  our  own  day  should  consider  themselves  as 
bound  by  the  spirit  of  the  rules  laid  down  for  the  guidance 
of  the  translators  of  1 61 1.  In  several  points  they  might  even 
be  bound  by  the  letter;  but,  as  the  circumstances  are  different, 

*  We  do  here  earnestly  repeat  the  hope,  already  expressed  in  substance  in 
an  earlier  portion  of  this  work  (see  p.  30),  that  the  judgment  of  tlie  ancient 
versions  will  especially  be  considered.  In  doubtful  cases,  and  where  the 
grammatical  and  exegetical  arguments  are  very  nearly  in  equipoise,  the  judg- 
ment of  the  early  versions  is  of  great  moment.  Every  pains,  therefore,  should 
be  taken  to  ascertain  their  opinions,  and  those  opinions  ought  to  be  accounted 
as  votes  of  a  very  prerogative  character.  Great  weight  may  also  justly  be 
laid  on  the  express  decisions  of  the  Greek  fathers.  The  deliberate  opinion 
of  men  who  spoke  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  can  not  fail  to  exercise 
considerable  influence  on  the  judgment  of  every  sober  interpreter. 


1 76     ELLICOTT  ON  EEYISION  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

and  the  proLlem  now  to  be  solved  not  perfectly  the  same  as  it 
Avas  then,  it  would  seem  enough  to  suggest  a  loyal  adherence 
to  the  spirit  of  the  rules,  and  esjaecially  a  careful  imitation  of 
the  manner  in  which  those  rules  were  applied.  To  say  more 
would  be  to  pass  into  details  which  have  either  been  already 
noticed  and  illustrated  in  the  foregoing  pages,  or  which  can 
only  properly  be  discussed  when  all  the  varied  exigencies  of 
the  work  shall  have  displayed  themselves  in  actual  practice. 
The  rules  of  the  revision  of  1611  may  form  the  basis  for  the 
rules  of  the  new  revision,  but  they  must  be  read  subject  to 
the  inherent  differences  between  the  work  of  the  past  and 
the  work  of  the  future.  The  former  revisers  had  to  deal  with 
a  version  of  but  moderate  pretensions  (the  Bishops'  Bible), 
and  but  doubtfully  holding  its  own  against  its  Genevan  rival. 
The  revisers  of  these  days  have  to  deal  with  a  version  of  the 
highest  possible  strain,  and  that  deservedly  stands  unique  and 
unapproached.  It  may  be  wise,  then,  for  our  present  revisers 
to  avail  themselves  of  the  wisdom  of  past  rules,  but  it  must 
nearly  always  be  rather  in  the  newness  of  their  spirit  than 
in  the  oldness  of  the  letter. 

To  sum  up  all,  then,  in  a  single  sentence,  we  would  respect- 
fully and  deferentially  say  to  the  learned  and  faithful  men  that 
will  shortly  address  themselves  to  this  great  undertaking,  Z>o 
your  vjor/v  together /  consider  experience  your  truest  guide/ 
dorCt  try  to  "  improve^''  our  present  version.,  hut  he  satisfied  with 
correcting  it ;  use  the  old  words,  and  have  an  ear  for  the  old 
rhythm  /  donH  decide  till  afterthought  has  exercised  its  due 
influence;  make  the  text  hetter  than  the  margin;  and,  lastly, 
folloio  the  sjjirit  of  the  old  rides. 

We  may  now  close  this  chapter,  and  with  it  tlie  present 
Conclusion,  work.  There  are  numberless  details  which  miglit 
yet  be  specified.  There  are  many  suggestions,  only  partially 
developed,  which  j)erhaps  it  might  not  be  wholly  out  of  place 
to  specify  in  a  chaj^ter  that  has  for  its  heading  The  best  Man- 
ner of  Proceeding  with  the  Work.  But  all  these  things  we 
may  now  leave  to  the  learned  body  of  men  who  cither  have 


BEST  2IAXNER  OF  PROCEEDING  WITH  THE  WORK.      177 

been  or  are  about  to  be  called  to  the  important  work.  Let  us 
trust  all  details  to  their  wisdom  and  faithfulness,  and  support 
them  by  our  prayers.  Their  work  is  arduous ;  much  is  ex- 
pected from  them ;  the  object  at  which  they  are  aiming  is 
almost  discouragingly  high  :  success  is  what  is  demanded  of 
them,  and  implied  in  the  very  fact  of  their  being  called  to- 
gether; failure  is  an  individual  as  well  as  a  collective  re- 
proach. Yes,  the  work  is  arduous.  Never,  since  the  last  re- 
vision, have  scholars  and  theologians  girded  up  their  loins  to 
a  work  in  which  more  faithfulness  was  required  in  prepara- 
tion ;  more  vigilance  in  execution ;  more  patience  in  discuss- 
ing ;  more  wisdom  in  discerning ;  more  sobriety  in  judging. 
Never,  during  the  two  centuries  and  a  half  that  have  now 
passed  away,  has  English  learning  and  good  sense  been  called 
upon  to  submit  themselves  to  a  severer  test.  Never  Avas 
there  a  work  in  which  could  be  needed,  not  only  for  the  gen- 
eral body,  but  for  every  individual  member  of  it,  more  patient 
energy,  deeper  humility,  and  a  fuller  sense  of  duty  and  re- 
sponsibility. 

Let  us  pray,  then,  for  our  revisers  and  their  Avork.  Let  us 
pray  that  their  work  may  bring  a  blessing  to  this  Church 
and  nation,  aud  make  wiser  unto  salvation  not  only  us  at 
home,  but  all  those  that  speak  our  common  tongue — those 
countless  thousands  whose  inner  and  spiritual  life  the  decis- 
ions of  these  revisers  may  affect,  and  whose  knowledge  of 
God's  message  to  mankind  their  deliberations  may  be  per- 
mitted to  further.  But  those  results  are  not  yet.  That  fu- 
ture is  still  distant.  Even  with  the  most  prospered  issues, 
a  generation  must  pass  away  ere  the  labors  of  the  present 
time  will  be  so  far  recognized  as  to  take  the  place  of  the 
labors  of  the  past.  The  youngest  scholar  that  may  be  called 
upon  to  bear  his  part  in  the  great  undertaking  will  have  ftiUen 
on  sleep  before  the  labors  in  which  he  may  have  shared  will 
be  regai'ded  as  fully  bearing  their  hoped-for  fruit.  The  latest 
survivor  of  the  gathered  company  will  be  resting  in  the  calm 
of  Paradise  ere  the  work  at  which  he  toiled  will  meet  with 


178      ELLICOTT  ON  REVISION  OF  THE  XEW  TESTAMENT. 

the  reception  which,  by  the  blessing  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost, 
it  may  ultimately  be  found  to  deserve.  The  bread  will  be 
cast  upon  the  Avaters,  but  it  will  not  be  found  till  after  many 
days. 

And  it  is  good  that  it  should  be  so.  Such  work  as  the  re- 
vision of  the  noblest  version  of  the  Word  of  God  that  this 
world  holds  is  not  for  the  fleeting  praise  or  blame  of  contem- 
poraries, but  for  the  calm  judgment  of  the  holy  and  the  wise 
in  distant  days  and  generations  yet  to  come.  .  .  .  With  such 
mingled  feelings,  with  these  humbly  implied  asjairations  on 
the  one  hand,  and  these  chastening  remembrances  on  the 
other — with  the  quickest  sense  of  frailty  and  weakness,  and 
yet  with  the  consciousness  of  deepest  responsibility,  let  our 
revisers  now  address  themselves  to  their  work,  and  in  the  end 
all  may  be  well.  Let  us  remember  that  our  best  and  highest 
powers  are  vouchsafed  to  us  in  this  world  only  for  labor  while 
it  is  day,  but  let  us  also  verily  remember  that  such  labor,  if 
faithfully  bestowed,  will  abide,  for  that  on  which  it  is  to  be 
bestowed  is  changeless  and  eternal.     All  flesh  is  grass, 

AND    all    the    glory    OF    afAN    AS    THE    FLOWER    OF    GRASS. 

The  grass  avithereth,  and  the  floaver  thereof  fall- 
eth  away,  but  the  avord  of  the  lord  endureth  for- 
EVER. 


THE    END. 


Date  Due 


Jl 


^rM^""*^^- 


'**'*««"*«»*««(  *sa». 


iMM!il&r^ 


*^C^^^^n- 


